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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 11/12/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/25.
Priority
The instant application claims benefit to CA3151040, filed 03/04/2022 and is acknowledged. The instant claims herein are examined using the effective filing date of 03/04/2022 for the basis of any prior art rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2023 was properly filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings recite “Figure” instead of “FIG.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to the drawings as “Figure” instead of “FIG.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains legal phraseology in line 4. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 4, 9, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “composition A, composition B, and Composition C” in line 3. The claims should be amended to recite “composition C” for consistency. Claim 9 recites “wherein linear alkylaminosulfonic acid is selected form”, which should be amended to recite “wherein the linear alkylaminosulfonic acid from” to be grammatically correct and fix the spelling of “from”. Claim 16 recites various bleaching chemicals but only one (Na2S2O4) has parentheses around the chemical formula. The claim should be amended to place parentheses around any chemical formula for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “providing a Cellulomonas uda (ATCC 491)” and “exposing said Cellulomonas uda (ATCC 491)”. The parentheses around the word “ATCC 491” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the specific strain within the parentheses is part of the claimed invention or if it is exemplary embodiment of a strain of C. uda. It is suggested to Applicant to amend the claim to remove the parentheses. Please note all of the dependent claims are also indefinite for dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a pH of about 8”. The term “about” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is unclear what upper and lower pH range is encompassed by the term “about 8” (does this language encompass pH of 7.5? 8.4?). Thus, the claim is indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not have understood what pH is encompassed by the recitation of “about 8”. For the purposes of compact patent prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the limitation to encompass pH ranges between 7.5-8. Please note all of the dependent claims are also indefinite for dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “for a period of time sufficient to remove substantially all of the lignin present on said biomass material”. The term “substantially all” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of lignin removal is encompassed by the term “substantially all”. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Please note that claims 5-16 are also indefinite due to dependency on indefinite claim 4.
Claim 5 recites that the sulfuric acid, compound comprising an amine moiety and sulfonic acid moiety and said peroxide are present in a molar ratio of no more than 15:1:1 (a three-part ratio). It is unclear which constituent must be less or more (i.e., whether “no more than” encompasses 1:15:1, 15:1:1, or 1:1:20). Thus, the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of compact patent prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the ratio to be about 1:1:1.
Claim 9 recites “linear alkylaminosulfonic acid is selected form the group consisting of: methyl; ethyl (taurine); propyl; and butyl.” The of parentheses around the word “taurine” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention or if it is exemplary.
It is noted any interpretation of the claims set forth above does not relieve Applicant of the responsibility of responding to this rejection. If the actual interpretation of the claims is different than that posited by the Examiner, additional rejections and art may be readily applied in a subsequent final Office action.
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 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 Nguyen (US20070277947A1), in view of Poulsen et al (Aerobic and anaerobic cellulase production by Cellulomonas uda. Arch Microbiol. 2016 Oct;198(8):725-35), 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”).
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 teaches 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). Please note that the composition disclosed by Nguyen would be a modified Caro’s acid composition (see claimed composition C), 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 or 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.
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen teaches the modified Caro’s composition of composition C.
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 ton 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 ton 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 ton 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 ton 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 ton 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 ton 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 ton one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of 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.
Claim 1, 4-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11982051B2 in view of Poulsen. Please note that the overlapping claim language has been bolded.
Regarding claims 1, 4-7, 10 and 15, patent claim 1 and 9 teaches a process to perform a controlled exothermic delignification of biomass, said process comprising the steps of: providing a vessel; providing biomass comprising lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose fibers into said vessel; providing a modified Caro's acid composition selected from the group consisting of: composition A and Composition C; wherein said composition A comprises: sulfuric acid in an amount ranging from 20 to 70 wt % of the total weight of the modified Caro's acid composition; a compound 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 sulfuric acid, said compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety, and said peroxide are present in a molar ratio of no less than 1:1:1 and no more than 15:1:1; wherein said composition C comprises: sulfuric acid; a compound comprising an amine moiety; a compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety; and a peroxide, wherein said sulfuric acid and said a compound comprising an amine moiety, and said compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety are present in a molar ratio of no less than 1:1:1 and no more than 28:1:1; exposing said biomass to said modified Caro's acid composition, creating a reaction mass; allowing said modified Caro's acid composition to come into contact with said biomass for a period of time sufficient to a delignification reaction to occur and remove over 90 wt % of said lignin and hemicellulose from said biomass; and controlling the temperature of the delignification reaction to maintain it below 55° C. by a method selected from the group consisting of: adding water into said vessel; adding biomass into said vessel; and using a heat exchanger.
None of the claims teach using C. uda, the claimed pH, or culturing for 14 days.
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.
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 patent claims 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.
Regarding claim 6, patent claim 5 teaches where said sulfuric acid and compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety are present in a molar ratio of no less than 3:1.
Regarding claim 7, patent claim 2 teaches the compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety is selected from the group consisting of: taurine; taurine derivatives; and taurine-related compounds.
Regarding claim 8-9, patent claim 3 teaches said taurine derivative or taurine-related compound is selected from the group consisting of: taurolidine; taurocholic acid; tauroselcholic acid; tauromustine; 5-taurinomethyluridine and 5-taurinomethyl-2-thiouridine; homotaurine (tramiprosate); acamprosate; and taurates; as well as aminoalkylsulfonic acids where the alkyl is selected from the group consisting of C1-C5 linear alkyl and C1-C5 branched alkyl.
Regarding claim 10, patent claim 4 teaches said compound comprising an amine moiety and a sulfonic acid moiety is taurine.
Regarding claim 11, patent claim 7 teaches where said compound comprising a sulfonic acid moiety is selected from the group consisting of: alkylsulfonic acids and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 12-13, patent claim 6 teaches where said compound comprising an amine moiety is an alkanolamine selected from the group consisting of: monoethanolamine; diethanolamine; triethanolamine; and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Poulsen teaches delignification and bleaching for at least 2 hours.
Regarding claim 15, patent claim 10-12 teaches the initial temperature of the reaction mass is no more than 25° C. and does not exceed 55° C. for the duration of the delignification reaction, where the temperature of the reaction mass is kept below 50° C. for the duration of the delignification reaction, and the temperature of the reaction mass is kept below 45° C. for the duration of the delignification reaction (respectively).
Regarding claim 16, Poulsen does not teach the use of prior exposure to bleaching chemicals, meeting the claim limitations.
Thus, it is clear the inventions are obvious variants of each other.
Second rejection
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11982051B2 in view of Nelson.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the patent claims.
None of the patent 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 patent 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.
Third rejection
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11982051B2 in view of Farone.
As discussed above, claim 1 is an obvious variant of the patent claims.
None of the patent claims 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 patent claims 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.
Fourth 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.
Fifth 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.
Sixth 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.
Seventh 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.
Eighth 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.
Ninth 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.
Tenth 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.
Eleventh rejection
Claim 1, 3, and 16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 in view of Poulsen and Akermann.
Regarding claim 1, copending claim 1, 9, and 18 teaches a process to obtain glucose from a pretreated lignocellulosic biomass, said process comprising the steps of: providing a lignocellulosic biomass contacting said lignocellulosic biomass to a modified Caro's acid composition for a period of time necessary to remove more than 98.5 % of the lignin present in said lignocellulosic biomass and thus obtaining a solid stream and a liquid stream, exposing said solid stream to an enzyme blend to produce a hydrolysate comprising sugars obtained from the hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose, - optionally, fermenting said hydrolysate with a fermenting organism to produce a value-added product. Claim 3 teaches kappa number of less than 10. Claim 13 teaches a temperature not exceeding 70 *C.
None of the claims teach C. uda, the claimed pH, or culturing for 14 days.
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.
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 patent claims 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.
Regarding claim 3, copending claim 14 teaches exposing the solution to an organism capable of converting glucose to said value added product, wherein said organism is selected from the group consisting of bacterium or fungi, or any combination thereof and claim 15 teaches said value added product is ethanol.
Regarding claim 16, Poulsen does not teach the use of prior exposure to bleaching chemicals, meeting the claim limitations.
Twelfth rejection
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 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.
Thirteenth rejection
Claims 4-6, and 14-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 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.
Fourteenth rejection
Claims 7-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 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.
Fifteenth rejection
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 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.
Sixteenth rejection
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 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.
Seventeenth rejection
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1, 3, 9, 13-15, 18 of copending Application No. 18/460219 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.
Eighteenth 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.
Nineteenth 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.
Twnetieth 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.
Twenty-first 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.
Twenty-second 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.
Twenty-third 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.
Twenty-third 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.
Conclusion
NO CLAIMS ALLOWED.
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