DETAILED ACTION
Status of claim rejections
The rejections of record under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments in the response filed 07/23/2026.
The rejections of record under 35 USC 103 are maintained in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments in the response filed 07/23/2026.
The double patenting rejections of record against US Patent No. 11,982,051 and copending application no. 18/460,219 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s filing of terminal disclaimers in the response filed 07/23/2026.
The double patenting rejections of record against copending application nos. 18/460,258 and 18/452169 are maintained in view of Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07/23/2026.
This Action is FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner has interpreted claim 1, which recites “said source of cellulose has a kappa number of less than 10” as a product of the delignification of the biomass (see pg. 8 of the specification).
Claim 4 has been amended to recite “such that the source of cellulose has a kappa number of less than 10”. This has been interpreted as an intended result of the recited exposure step.
Maintained 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
First rejection
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen et al (Aerobic and anaerobic cellulase production by Cellulomonas uda. Arch Microbiol. 2016 Oct;198(8):725-35), in view of Nguyen (US20070277947A1), and Akkermann et al. (Optimization of bioprocesses with Brewers' spent grain and Cellulomonas uda. Eng Life Sci. 2021 Aug 27;22(3-4):132-151. doi: 10.1002/elsc.202100053; hereinafter “Akermann”) as evidenced by Mortha et al (US11384480B2; see also US20190345672A1 published 11/14/2019).
Poulsen teaches cultivation of C. uda under aerobic and anaerobic conditions inside of a bioreactor on various cellulose substrates with pH control where the primary products of the cellulose hydrolysis is cellobiose and glucose at pH of 7.4 (a process to hydrolyze cellulose into cellobiose; providing a reaction vessel, a source of cellulose, and C. uda into the vessel, and exposing to the source of cellulose as in claim 1) (see abstract; pg. 731, col 1-2; pg. 732).
Poulsen does not explicitly teach the source of cellulose has a kappa number of less than 10.
However, Nguyen teaches use of fibrous plant material to make pulp using cellulosic materials, e.g., fibrous plants are trees, including hardwood fibrous trees such as aspen, eucalyptus, maple, birch, walnut, acacia and softwood fibrous trees such as spruce, pine, cedar (see paragraph 0034). Nguyen teaches using a bleaching liquor comprising peroxymono sulfuric acid (i.e., sulfuric acid), EDTA, DTPA, EDTMP, DTPMP, or DTPA (i.e., a compound comprising amine moiety), 1,3,5-triazinyl derivatives of 4,4′-diaminostilbene-2,2′-disulfonic acid (i.e., compound comprising sulfonic acid moiety) and peroxides, per-oxy acids or acid derivatives of hydrogen peroxide (i.e., a peroxide) (see paragraphs 0033-52). Nguyen teaches that this composition is used to reduce lignin and increase brightness (see paragraph 0009, 0040-41).
Furthermore, Mortha evidences “bleaching paper pulp is carried out in several steps called stages. Each stage is followed by washing the paper pulp and most often a change in pH. During these various steps, different chemical reagents such as delignification agents (oxygen, chlorine dioxide or hydrogen peroxide) are generally used to generate oxidation, decoloration and nearly complete dissolution of the lignin in the paper pulp” (see col 1).
Please note that the composition disclosed by Nguyen would be a modified Caro’s acid composition (see claimed composition C) including peroxide, such that using the composition/process of Nguyen, absent evidence to the contrary, would result in a cellulose with a kappa number of less than 10 as instantly claimed (see interpretation above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of Poulsen and include the composition of Nguyen to delignify the cellulose and arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Nguyen explicitly teaches that the bleaching liquor used allows for advantageous reduction of lignin and increased brightness of the cellulose material.
Neither Poulsen nor Nguyen teach culturing for 14 days.
However, Akermann teaches optimization of aerobic and anaerobic growth of C. uda on lignocellulosic feedstock during fermentation in a bioreactor and its ability to express cellulose and hemi-cellulose degrading enzymes (see abstract; pg. 136 col 1-2; Fig. 3). Akermann teaches successful fermentation of the bacteria on the cellulosic feedstock for 14 days (see Fig. 3 description).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the method of Poulsen and Nguyen with the culturing time of Akermann to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Akermann specifically teaches successful fermentation of C. uda for 14 days to breakdown cellulosic feedstock.
Further regarding claim 4, Nguyen teaches exposure to the modified Caro’s composition of composition C and Mortha evidences that hydrogen peroxides (i.e., a peroxide included in the modified Caro’s composition) are capable of nearly complete dissolution of lignin (see above). Thus, the composition would, absent evidence to the contrary, “remove the lignin present on said biomass material such that the source of cellulose has a kappa number of less than 10” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 5-6, none of the reference explicitly teach the molar ratios as claimed. However, the bleaching liquor can contain the components in any amount for the desired effect and usually conventional amounts are employed (see paragraph 0044). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the amount of each constituent of the composition to achieve the desired effect (e.g., bleaching and lignin removal). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen teaches bleaching/delignification times for 30 mins to 6 hours, preferably 90 mins to 2 hours (paragraph 0047). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Nguyen teaches useful temperatures can be as low as about 25° C. or lower and as high as about 100° C (paragraph 0048). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, neither Poulsen nor Nguyen teach the use of prior exposure to bleaching chemicals, meeting the claim limitations.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Second rejection
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann as applied to claim 1, 4-6, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Nelson et al (US 20170210827).
As discussed above, claims 1, 4-6, and 14-16 were rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann.
None of the references explicitly teach the particle size is between 30-50 um.
However, Nelson teaches processes of converting biomass into high-crystallinity nanocellulose (see abstract, claim 1). Nelson teaches “biomass-derived pulp may be converted to nanocellulose by mechanical processing. Although the process may be simple, disadvantages include high energy consumption, damage to fibers and particles due to intense mechanical treatment, and a broad distribution in fibril diameter and length” (paragraph 0006). Nelson teaches that it is beneficial to process biomass in a way that effectively separates the major fractions (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) from each other and subjecting the cellulose to further processing to produce nanocellulose (see paragraph 109-0111). Nelson specifically teaches that fractionation of lignocellulosics leads to release of cellulosic fibers and opens the cell wall structure by dissolution of lignin and hemicellulose between the cellulose microfibrils, where the fibers become more accessible for conversion to nanofibrils or nanocrystals, and hemicellulose sugars can be fermented to a variety of products, such as ethanol, or converted to other chemicals (see paragraph 0109). Nelson further teaches the cellulose includes both micron-sized and nanometer-sized particles or fibers ranging from 0.01 nm to 100 um (see paragraph 0114). Note that the particle size range claimed (30-50 um) is within the range disclosed by Nelson. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by using the particle size of Nelson to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Nelson teaches that micron and nanoparticle sizes are advantageously fractionation of lignocellulosics leads to release of cellulosic fibers and opens the cell wall structure by dissolution of lignin and hemicellulose between the cellulose microfibrils, where the fibers become more accessible for conversion to nanofibrils or nanocrystals, and hemicellulose sugars can be fermented to a variety of products, such as ethanol, or converted to other chemicals.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Third rejection
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann as applied to claim 1, 4-6, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Farone et al (WO1996040970A1; see IDS).
As discussed above, claims 1, 4-6, and 14-16 were rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann.
None of the references explicitly teach further comprising a step of exposing the cell supernatant to a bacterium or fungi or yeast, or combination to convert cellobiose to glucose or ethanol.
However, Farone teaches economically viable method for producing sugars using concentrated acid hydrolysis of biomass containing cellulose and hemicellulose (see abstract, claim 1; examples 1-3). Farone teaches that fermentation of the cellulosic biomass can be accomplished by adding yeasts to assist in converting the cellulose into viable products and sugars (see pg. 17-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by including the yeast of Farone to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the process using the yeast of Farone with a reasonable expectation of success because Farone explicitly teaches that fermentation of the cellulosic biomass can be accomplished by adding yeasts to assist in converting the cellulose into viable products and sugars.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Fourth rejection
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann as applied to claim 1, 4-6, and 14-16 above, and further in view of El-Shaffie (US20120122164 A1).
As discussed above, claims 1, 4-6, and 14-16 were rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann.
None of the references explicitly teach compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety is selected from the group consisting of taurine; taurine derivatives; and taurine-related compounds (claim 7), taurine derivates and aminoalkylsulfonic acids (claim 8), wherein the linear alkylaminosulfonic acid is a methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl (claim 9), wherein the compound comprising an amine moiety and sulfonic acid moiety is taurine (claim 10).
However, El-Shaffie teaches methods of processing a biomass, e.g., for producing lipid and non-lipid materials, by inducing autolysis of a biomass (see abstract). El-Shaffie teaches the biomass may be generated using any species of microorganism and any available biodegradable substrate, including waste materials (see abstract). El-Shaffie teaches that the use of the processing are advantageous, because they rely on the microorganism for delignification of lignocellulose and depolymerization of polysaccharides via autolysis, which is used instead of man-made hydrolysis (see paragraph 0052). El-Shaffie further teaches that the autolysate includes taurine (see paragraph 0122).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by including autolysate taurine as taught by El-Shaffie to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because El-Shaffie teaches that the use of the processing are advantageous, because they rely on the microorganism for delignification of lignocellulose and depolymerization of polysaccharides via autolysis.
Please note that the taurine as taught by El-Shaffie is an ethyl and an aminoalkylsulfonic acid as claimed.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Fifth rejection
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann as applied to claim 1, 4-6, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Thierry et al (EP0801170A1; see provided English translation).
As discussed above, claims 1, 4-6, and 14-16 were rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann.
None of the references explicitly teach alkylsulfonic acid is selected from the group consisting of: methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, propanesulfonic acid, 2-propanesulfonic acid, isobutylsulfonic acid, t-butylsulfonic acid, butanesulfonic acid, iso- pentylsulfonic acid, t-pentylsulfonic acid, pentanesulfonic acid, t-butylhexanesulfonic acid, and combinations thereof.
However, Thierry teaches delignification and/or bleaching paper paste using organic peroxyacids (see abstract). Thierry teaches use of peroxyacids to increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization (see example 8). Thierry explicitly teaches that peroxyacid solutions can be used, where the peroxyacid solution contains methanesulfonic acids as acid catalyst (see paragraph 0017, and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by including the methanesulfonic acid of Thierry to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Thierry explicitly teaches methanesulfonic acid as a known acid catalyst that can be advantageously used to delignify and bleach paper paste (i.e., cellulosic material) and increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Sixth rejection
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann as applied to claim 1, 4-6, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Sargent et al (US 5234466; hereinafter “Sargent”).
As discussed above, claims 1, 4-6, and 14-16 were rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann.
None of the references explicitly teach the amine moiety is an alkanolamine selected from the group consisting of: monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and combinations thereof.
However, Sargent teaches processing of cellulose-based textiles (see col 5, lines 52-col 6 lines 41; see example 4). Sargent teaches various weak bases/salts can be used as equivalents to urea sulfates in the processing of the material and for pH control, including di and tri-ethanolamine (see col 6, entirety of example 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by including the di and triethanolamine of Sargent to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the salts of Sargent with a reasonable expectation of success because Sargent explicitly teaches successful processing of cellulose-based textiles using di and tri-ethanolamine.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Seventh rejection
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann as applied to claim 1, 4-6, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Thierry and Sargent.
As discussed above, claims 1, 4-6, and 14-16 were rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann.
None of the references explicitly teach an amine moiety is triethanolamine and said compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety is methanesulfonic acid.
However, Thierry teaches delignification and/or bleaching paper paste using organic peroxyacids (see abstract). Thierry teaches use of peroxyacids to increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization (see example 8). Thierry explicitly teaches that peroxyacid solutions can be used, where the peroxyacid solution contains methanesulfonic acids as acid catalyst (see paragraph 0017, and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by including the methanesulfonic acid of Thierry to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Thierry explicitly teaches methanesulfonic acid as a known acid catalyst that can be advantageously used to delignify and bleach paper paste (i.e., cellulosic material) and increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization.
Furthermore, Sargent teaches processing of cellulose based textiles (see col 5, lines 52-col 6 lines 41; see example 4). Sargent teaches various weak bases/salts can be used as equivalents to urea sulfates in the processing of the material and for pH control, including di and tri-ethanolamine (see col 6, entirety of example 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the process of cellulose to cellobiose conversion as taught by Poulsen, Nguyen, and Akermann by including the di and triethanolamine of Sargent to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the salts of Sargent with a reasonable expectation of success because Sargent explicitly teaches successful processing of cellulose-based textiles using di and tri-ethanolamine.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 13-14, Applicant argues, inter alia, that the examiner’s conclusion that Nguyen’s bleaching liquor would inherently yield a cellulose with a kappa number of less than 10 is speculative and unsupported. Applicant argues that Nguyen is directed to brightening mechanical pulp for paper-making using optical brightening agents and not for delignifying biomass for enzymatic hydrolysis and expressly teaches mechanical pulps retain substantial amounts of retained lignin and the goal of bleaching is to enhance ISO brightness not to remove lignin. Applicant further argues that Nguyen cautions against lignin removal and to minimize lignin removal. . . peroxides are the most preferred bleaching agents, never discloses or measures a kappa number and higher ISO brightness is not equivalent to low lignin content or low kappa number such that there is no basis that Nguyen’s process would produce a feedstock having a kappa number of less than 10 as required by the claims.
In response, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims require use of a modified Caro’s acid solution including, e.g., sulfuric acid, an amine moiety, a sulfonic acid moiety and a peroxide (i.e., compound C) (see claim 1 and pg. 8-9 of the specification). Nguyen explicitly teaches such a combination (see above). While Nguyen teaches the use of peroxy acids on mechanical pulps could result in undesirable side effects such as yield loss through dissolution and removal of lignin as instantly argued, it is noted that Nguyen does teach that such a mixture including peroxide would lead to removal of lignin from the cellulosic material, which is required by the instant method. Furthermore, Mortha evidences “bleaching paper pulp is carried out in several steps called stages. Each stage is followed by washing the paper pulp and most often a change in pH. During these various steps, different chemical reagents such as delignification agents (oxygen, chlorine dioxide or hydrogen peroxide) are generally used to generate oxidation, decoloration and nearly complete dissolution of the lignin in the paper pulp” (see col 1). Please note that the composition disclosed by Nguyen would be a modified Caro’s acid composition (see claimed composition C) including peroxide, such that using the composition/process of Nguyen, absent evidence to the contrary, would result in a cellulose with a kappa number of less than 10 as instantly claimed (see interpretation above).
While it may not be one of the desired outcomes for the bleaching purpose of Nguyen, one of ordinary skill would have readily recognized that the peroxide mixture would be suitable for the removal of lignin (see MPEP 2144.07). Thus, the rejection is maintained as set forth above.
Maintained 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.
First rejection
Claim 1, 3, and 15-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of Poulsen.
Regarding claim 1, ‘258 claim 1 and 15 teaches a process to hydrolyze cellulose into cellobiose, said process comprising the following steps:- providing a reaction vessel; providing a source of cellulose into said reaction vessel; wherein said source of cellulose having has a kappa number of less than 10, preferably the kappa number is 5 or less, more preferably the kappa number is 2 or less; and a hemicellulose content of less than 15%; preferably less than 10 %, even more preferably less than 5 % w/w of the total weight of the source of cellulose; - providing an organism capable of expressing one or more p-glucanases inoculum into said reaction vessel; - exposing said an organism capable of expressing one or more p3-glucanases to said source of cellulose in an aqueous medium; and - optionally, recovering the supernatant comprising cellobiose. Claim 12 and 20 teaches source of cellulose is exposed to an organism at a temperature between 20°C to 40°C. Claim 13 and 21 teaches incubating with said source of cellulose for a period of time ranging from 1 to 30 days. Claim 14 and 22 teaches said aqueous medium has a pH of about 5.0 to 8.0 or 5.0 to 9.0.
None of the claims teach using C. uda.
Poulsen teaches cultivation of C. uda under aerobic and anaerobic conditions inside of a bioreactor on various cellulose substrates with pH control where the primary products of the cellulose hydrolysis is cellobiose and glucose at pH of 7.4 (a process to hydrolyze cellulose into cellobiose; providing a reaction vessel, a source of cellulose, and C. uda into the vessel, and exposing to the source of cellulose as in claim 1) (see abstract; pg. 731, col 1-2; pg. 732).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the patent claims by including the C. uda of Poulsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated because Poulsen explicitly teaches that C. uda is advantageously capable of being cultivated for the purpose of hydrolyzing cellulose into cellobiose and glucose.
Regarding claim 3, copending claim 2 teaches comprising a step of exposing the cell supernatant to an organism to convert cellobiose to glucose, wherein said organism selected from the group consisting of: a bacterium, a fungus, a yeast, and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Poulsen does not teach any prior exposure to bleaching chemicals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Second rejection
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of Nelson.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the patent claims.
None of the claims teach source of cellulose has a particle size ranging between 30-50 pm.
However, Nelson teaches processes of converting biomass into high-crystallinity nanocellulose (see abstract, claim 1). Nelson teaches “biomass-derived pulp may be converted to nanocellulose by mechanical processing. Although the process may be simple, disadvantages include high energy consumption, damage to fibers and particles due to intense mechanical treatment, and a broad distribution in fibril diameter and length” (paragraph 0006). Nelson teaches that it is beneficial to process biomass in a way that effectively separates the major fractions (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) from each other and subjecting the cellulose to further processing to produce nanocellulose (see paragraph 109-0111). Nelson specifically teaches that fractionation of lignocellulosics leads to release of cellulosic fibers and opens the cell wall structure by dissolution of lignin and hemicellulose between the cellulose microfibrils, where the fibers become more accessible for conversion to nanofibrils or nanocrystals, and hemicellulose sugars can be fermented to a variety of products, such as ethanol, or converted to other chemicals (see paragraph 0109). Nelson further teaches the cellulose includes both micron-sized and nanometer-sized particles or fibers ranging from 0.01 nm to 100 um (see paragraph 0114). Note that the particle size range claimed (30-50 um) is within the range disclosed by Nelson. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by using the particle size of Nelson to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Nelson teaches that micron and nanoparticle sizes are advantageously fractionation of lignocellulosics leads to release of cellulosic fibers and opens the cell wall structure by dissolution of lignin and hemicellulose between the cellulose microfibrils, where the fibers become more accessible for conversion to nanofibrils or nanocrystals, and hemicellulose sugars can be fermented to a variety of products, such as ethanol, or converted to other chemicals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Third rejection
Claims 4-6, and 14-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of Nguyen.
None of the claims teach the compositions as instantly claimed.
However, Nguyen teaches use of fibrous plant material to make pulp using cellulosic materials, e.g., fibrous plants are trees, including hardwood fibrous trees such as aspen, eucalyptus, maple, birch, walnut, acacia and softwood fibrous trees such as spruce, pine, cedar (see paragraph 0034). Nguyen teaches using a bleaching liquor comprising peroxymono sulfuric acid (i.e., sulfuric acid), EDTA, DTPA, EDTMP, DTPMP, or DTPA (i.e., a compound comprising amine moiety), 1,3,5-triazinyl derivatives of 4,4′-diaminostilbene-2,2′-disulfonic acid (i.e., compound comprising sulfonic acid moiety) and peroxides, per-oxy acids or acid derivatives of hydrogen peroxide (i.e., a peroxide) (see paragraphs 0033-52). Nguyen teaches that this composition is used to reduce lignin and increase brightness (see paragraph 0009, 0040-41). Please note that the composition disclosed by Nguyen would be a modified Caro’s acid composition (see claimed composition C).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims and include the composition of Nguyen to delignify the cellulose and arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Nguyen explicitly teaches that the bleaching liquor used allows for advantageous reduction of lignin and increased brightness of the cellulose material.
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen teaches the modified Caro’s composition of composition C.
Regarding claim 5-6, none of the claims explicitly teach the molar ratios as claimed. However, the bleaching liquor can contain the components in any amount for the desired effect and usually conventional amounts are employed (see paragraph 0044). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the amount of each constituent of the composition to achieve the desired effect (e.g., bleaching and lignin removal). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen teaches bleaching/delignification times for 30 mins to 6 hours, preferably 90 mins to 2 hours (paragraph 0047). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Nguyen teaches useful temperatures can be as low as about 25° C. or lower and as high as about 100° C (paragraph 0048). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Fourth rejection
Claims 7-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of El-Shaffie.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the patent claims.
None of the claims explicitly teach compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety is selected from the group consisting of taurine; taurine derivatives; and taurine-related compounds (claim 7), taurine derivates and aminoalkylsulfonic acids (claim 8), wherein the linear alkylaminosulfonic acid is a methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl (claim 9), wherein the compound comprising an amine moiety and sulfonic acid moiety is taurine (claim 10).
However, El-Shaffie teaches methods of processing a biomass, e.g., for producing lipid and non-lipid materials, by inducing autolysis of a biomass (see abstract). El-Shaffie teaches the biomass may be generated using any species of microorganism and any available biodegradable substrate, including waste materials (see abstract). El-Shaffie teaches that the use of the processing are advantageous, because they rely on the microorganism for delignification of lignocellulose and depolymerization of polysaccharides via autolysis, which is used instead of man-made hydrolysis (see paragraph 0052). El-Shaffie further teaches that the autolysate includes taurine (see paragraph 0122).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including autolysate taurine as taught by El-Shaffie to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because El-Shaffie teaches that the use of the processing are advantageous, because they rely on the microorganism for delignification of lignocellulose and depolymerization of polysaccharides via autolysis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
fifth rejection
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of Thierry.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims explicitly teach the claimed alkylsulfonic acids.
However, Thierry teaches delignification and/or bleaching paper paste using organic peroxyacids (see abstract). Thierry teaches use of peroxyacids to increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization (see example 8). Thierry explicitly teaches that peroxyacid solutions can be used, where the peroxyacid solution contains methanesulfonic acids as acid catalyst (see paragraph 0017, and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the methanesulfonic acid of Thierry to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Thierry explicitly teaches methanesulfonic acid as a known acid catalyst that can be advantageously used to delignify and bleach paper paste (i.e., cellulosic material) and increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Sixth rejection
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of Sargent.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims teach the amine moiety is an alkanolamine selected from the group consisting of: monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and combinations thereof.
However, Sargent teaches processing of cellulose based textiles (see col 5, lines 52-col 6 lines 41; see example 4). Sargent teaches various weak bases/salts can be used as equivalents to urea sulfates in the processing of the material and for pH control, including di and tri-ethanolamine (see col 6, entirety of example 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the di and triethanolamine of Sargent to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the salts of Sargent with a reasonable expectation of success because Sargent explicitly teaches successful processing of cellulose based textiles using di and tri-ethanolamine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Seventh rejection
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 12-15, 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/460258 in view of Sargent and Thierry.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims teach an amine moiety is triethanolamine and said compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety is methanesulfonic acid.
However, Thierry teaches delignification and/or bleaching paper paste using organic peroxyacids (see abstract). Thierry teaches use of peroxyacids to increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization (see example 8). Thierry explicitly teaches that peroxyacid solutions can be used, where the peroxyacid solution contains methanesulfonic acids as acid catalyst (see paragraph 0017, and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the methanesulfonic acid of Thierry to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Thierry explicitly teaches methanesulfonic acid as a known acid catalyst that can be advantageously used to delignify and bleach paper paste (i.e., cellulosic material) and increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization.
Furthermore, Sargent teaches processing of cellulose based textiles (see col 5, lines 52-col 6 lines 41; see example 4). Sargent teaches various weak bases/salts can be used as equivalents to urea sulfates in the processing of the material and for pH control, including di and tri-ethanolamine (see col 6, entirety of example 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the di and triethanolamine of Sargent to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the salts of Sargent with a reasonable expectation of success because Sargent explicitly teaches successful processing of cellulose based textiles using di and tri-ethanolamine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Eighth rejection
Claim 1, 3-4, and 16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18452169 in view of Poulsen.
Regarding claim 1, 3-4, 9, copending claim 11 teaches method of obtaining ethanol from a lignocellulosic biomass where said method comprises the following steps of preparing a delignification mixture and delignifying a lignocellulosic biomass using a modified Caro's acid selected from the group consisting of: composition A; composition B and Composition composition C; wherein said composition A comprises: - sulfuric acid in an amount ranging from 20 to 70 wt% of the total weight of the composition; - a modifier component comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety selected from the group consisting of: taurine; taurine derivatives; and taurine-related compounds; and- a peroxide; wherein said composition B comprises:- an alkylsulfonic acid; and - a peroxide; wherein the acid is present in an amount ranging from 40 to 80 wt% of the total weight of the composition and where the peroxide is present in an amount ranging from 10 to 40 wt% of the total weight of the composition; wherein said composition C comprises:- sulfuric acid; -- a two-part modifier component comprising:a compound comprising an amine moiety; a compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety; and - a peroxide; wherein said delignification mixture comprises said lignocellulosic biomass and said modified Caro's acid; recovering a solid portion of said delignification reaction mixture, wherein said solid portion comprises a substantially hemicellulose-free cellulosic component which comprises at most, up to 15 % w/w hemicellulose; exposing said recovered solid portion of the resulting reaction mixture to an enzyme mix comprising at least one cellulase enzyme to create a saccharification or fermentation system which breaks down the cellulose into a saccharified composition, e.g., oligosaccharides or ferments said saccharified composition to ethanol; and optionally, feeding the saccharified composition to an organism, such as yeast, capable of fermenting sugars into ethanol. Claim 19 and 20 teaches a process to hydrolyze cellulose into glucose, said process comprising the following steps:- providing a reaction vessel; - providing a source of cellulose into said reaction vessel; wherein said source of cellulose has a hemicellulose content of less than 30% of the original hemicellulose content of lignocellulosic biomass from which it originated; - providing a microbial inoculum into said reaction vessel; - exposing said inoculum to said source of cellulose in an aqueous medium of pH of about 8 at a temperature ranging from 30°C to 40°C for a period of time ranging from 1 to 42 days ; - optionally, recovering the supernatant comprising glucose; and - exposing the glucose to a bacterium, a fungi, or yeast, or a combination thereof which ferments the glucose to ethanol.
None of the claims teach using C. uda.
Poulsen teaches cultivation of C. uda under aerobic and anaerobic conditions inside of a bioreactor on various cellulose substrates with pH control where the primary products of the cellulose hydrolysis is cellobiose and glucose at pH of 7.4 (a process to hydrolyze cellulose into cellobiose; providing a reaction vessel, a source of cellulose, and C. uda into the vessel, and exposing to the source of cellulose as in claim 1) (see abstract; pg. 731, col 1-2; pg. 732).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the C. uda of Poulsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated because Poulsen explicitly teaches that C. uda is advantageously capable of being cultivated for the purpose of hydrolyzing cellulose into cellobiose and glucose.
Regarding claim 16, Poulsen does not teach the use of prior exposure to bleaching chemicals, meeting the claim limitations.
Ninth rejection
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/452169 in view of Nelson.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims teach source of cellulose has a particle size ranging between 30-50 pm.
However, Nelson teaches processes of converting biomass into high-crystallinity nanocellulose (see abstract, claim 1). Nelson teaches “biomass-derived pulp may be converted to nanocellulose by mechanical processing. Although the process may be simple, disadvantages include high energy consumption, damage to fibers and particles due to intense mechanical treatment, and a broad distribution in fibril diameter and length” (paragraph 0006). Nelson teaches that it is beneficial to process biomass in a way that effectively separates the major fractions (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) from each other and subjecting the cellulose to further processing to produce nanocellulose (see paragraph 109-0111). Nelson specifically teaches that fractionation of lignocellulosics leads to release of cellulosic fibers and opens the cell wall structure by dissolution of lignin and hemicellulose between the cellulose microfibrils, where the fibers become more accessible for conversion to nanofibrils or nanocrystals, and hemicellulose sugars can be fermented to a variety of products, such as ethanol, or converted to other chemicals (see paragraph 0109). Nelson further teaches the cellulose includes both micron-sized and nanometer-sized particles or fibers ranging from 0.01 nm to 100 um (see paragraph 0114). Note that the particle size range claimed (30-50 um) is within the range disclosed by Nelson. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by using the particle size of Nelson to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Nelson teaches that micron and nanoparticle sizes are advantageously fractionation of lignocellulosics leads to release of cellulosic fibers and opens the cell wall structure by dissolution of lignin and hemicellulose between the cellulose microfibrils, where the fibers become more accessible for conversion to nanofibrils or nanocrystals, and hemicellulose sugars can be fermented to a variety of products, such as ethanol, or converted to other chemicals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Tenth rejection
Claims 4-6, and 14-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/452169 in view of Nguyen.
None of the claims teach the compositions as instantly claimed.
However, Nguyen teaches use of fibrous plant material to make pulp using cellulosic materials, e.g., fibrous plants are trees, including hardwood fibrous trees such as aspen, eucalyptus, maple, birch, walnut, acacia and softwood fibrous trees such as spruce, pine, cedar (see paragraph 0034). Nguyen teaches using a bleaching liquor comprising peroxymono sulfuric acid (i.e., sulfuric acid), EDTA, DTPA, EDTMP, DTPMP, or DTPA (i.e., a compound comprising amine moiety), 1,3,5-triazinyl derivatives of 4,4′-diaminostilbene-2,2′-disulfonic acid (i.e., compound comprising sulfonic acid moiety) and peroxides, per-oxy acids or acid derivatives of hydrogen peroxide (i.e., a peroxide) (see paragraphs 0033-52). Nguyen teaches that this composition is used to reduce lignin and increase brightness (see paragraph 0009, 0040-41). Please note that the composition disclosed by Nguyen would be a modified Caro’s acid composition (see claimed composition C).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims and include the composition of Nguyen to delignify the cellulose and arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Nguyen explicitly teaches that the bleaching liquor used allows for advantageous reduction of lignin and increased brightness of the cellulose material.
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen teaches the modified Caro’s composition of composition C.
Regarding claim 5-6, none of the claims explicitly teach the molar ratios as claimed. However, the bleaching liquor can contain the components in any amount for the desired effect and usually conventional amounts are employed (see paragraph 0044). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the amount of each constituent of the composition to achieve the desired effect (e.g., bleaching and lignin removal). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen teaches bleaching/delignification times for 30 mins to 6 hours, preferably 90 mins to 2 hours (paragraph 0047). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Nguyen teaches useful temperatures can be as low as about 25° C. or lower and as high as about 100° C (paragraph 0048). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Eleventh rejection
Claims 7-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/452169 in view of El-Shaffie.
None of the claims explicitly teach compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety is selected from the group consisting of taurine; taurine derivatives; and taurine-related compounds (claim 7), taurine derivates and aminoalkylsulfonic acids (claim 8), wherein the linear alkylaminosulfonic acid is a methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl (claim 9), wherein the compound comprising an amine moiety and sulfonic acid moiety is taurine (claim 10).
However, El-Shaffie teaches methods of processing a biomass, e.g., for producing lipid and non-lipid materials, by inducing autolysis of a biomass (see abstract). El-Shaffie teaches the biomass may be generated using any species of microorganism and any available biodegradable substrate, including waste materials (see abstract). El-Shaffie teaches that the use of the processing are advantageous, because they rely on the microorganism for delignification of lignocellulose and depolymerization of polysaccharides via autolysis, which is used instead of man-made hydrolysis (see paragraph 0052). El-Shaffie further teaches that the autolysate includes taurine (see paragraph 0122).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including autolysate taurine as taught by El-Shaffie to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because El-Shaffie teaches that the use of the processing are advantageous, because they rely on the microorganism for delignification of lignocellulose and depolymerization of polysaccharides via autolysis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Twelfth rejection
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/452169 in view of Thierry.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims explicitly teach the claimed alkylsulfonic acids.
However, Thierry teaches delignification and/or bleaching paper paste using organic peroxyacids (see abstract). Thierry teaches use of peroxyacids to increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization (see example 8). Thierry explicitly teaches that peroxyacid solutions can be used, where the peroxyacid solution contains methanesulfonic acids as acid catalyst (see paragraph 0017, and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the methanesulfonic acid of Thierry to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Thierry explicitly teaches methanesulfonic acid as a known acid catalyst that can be advantageously used to delignify and bleach paper paste (i.e., cellulosic material) and increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Thirteenth rejection
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/452169 in view of Sargent.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims teach the amine moiety is an alkanolamine selected from the group consisting of: monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and combinations thereof.
However, Sargent teaches processing of cellulose based textiles (see col 5, lines 52-col 6 lines 41; see example 4). Sargent teaches various weak bases/salts can be used as equivalents to urea sulfates in the processing of the material and for pH control, including di and tri-ethanolamine (see col 6, entirety of example 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the di and triethanolamine of Sargent to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the salts of Sargent with a reasonable expectation of success because Sargent explicitly teaches successful processing of cellulose based textiles using di and tri-ethanolamine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Fourteenth rejection
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/452169 in view of Sargent and Thierry.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the copending claims.
None of the claims teach an amine moiety is triethanolamine and said compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety is methanesulfonic acid.
However, Thierry teaches delignification and/or bleaching paper paste using organic peroxyacids (see abstract). Thierry teaches use of peroxyacids to increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization (see example 8). Thierry explicitly teaches that peroxyacid solutions can be used, where the peroxyacid solution contains methanesulfonic acids as acid catalyst (see paragraph 0017, and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the methanesulfonic acid of Thierry to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Thierry explicitly teaches methanesulfonic acid as a known acid catalyst that can be advantageously used to delignify and bleach paper paste (i.e., cellulosic material) and increase delignification while maintaining an acceptable degree of polymerization.
Furthermore, Sargent teaches processing of cellulose based textiles (see col 5, lines 52-col 6 lines 41; see example 4). Sargent teaches various weak bases/salts can be used as equivalents to urea sulfates in the processing of the material and for pH control, including di and tri-ethanolamine (see col 6, entirety of example 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the claims by including the di and triethanolamine of Sargent to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the salts of Sargent with a reasonable expectation of success because Sargent explicitly teaches successful processing of cellulose based textiles using di and tri-ethanolamine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 15 of the remarks, Applicant argues with regards to the NSDP rejections over copending application no. 18/460,258. Specifically, Applicant asks that the rejections be held in abeyance until otherwise allowable subject matter is identified in the present application. The examiner notes the arguments do not address the double patenting rejections against copending application no. 18/452,169.
In response, the rejections are maintained because both copending applications are, as discussed above, obvious variants of the claimed invention, as set forth above. Please note that only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer is filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is made of record by the examiner (see MPEP § 804.02 (IV) for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995).
Conclusion
NO CLAIMS ALLOWED.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lo et al (Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 5802–5807): teaches ‘‘temperature-shift” strategy was developed to improve reducing sugar production from bacterial hydrolysis of cellulosic materials. In this strategy, production of cellulolytic enzymes with Cellulomonas uda E3-01 was promoted at a preferable temperature (35 C), while more efficient enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis was achieved under an elevated culture temperature (45 C), at which cell growth was inhibited to avoid consumption of reducing sugar. This temperature-shift strategy was shown to markedly increase the reducing sugar (especially, monosaccharide and disaccharide) concentration in the hydrolysate while hydrolyzing pure (carboxymethyl-cellulose, xylan, avicel and cellobiose) and natural (rice husk, rice straw, bagasse and Napier-grass) cellulosic materials (see abstract, throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGIANA C REGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0995. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00am-2:00pm.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/G.C.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/THOMAS J. VISONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1672
