DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said step of analyzing said suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition is performed by means of an image analysis method” in lines 1-3. The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “means” and functional language “image analysis method” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. In accordance with Figure 2 and page 13, lines 15-19 of the specification, the term is interpreted to mean an image capturing device configured to capture images and an image processing device configured to process data received from the image capturing device.
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 2-3, 5, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “wherein at least 30%, e.g. at least 35%, e.g. at least 50%, e.g. at least 70% of the lignocellulosic particles” in lines 1-2 and “such as above 600 μm” in line 3. The phrases “e.g.” and "such as" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the optimal process parameters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the pretreatment unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pretreatment unit" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “wherein at least 50%, such as at least 70%, preferably at least 80% of the lignocellulosic particles” in lines 1-2 and “preferably from 0.1 to 200 μm” in line 4. The phrases “such as” and "preferably" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the degree of said pretreatment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-15 are rejected due to their dependence on the rejected Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2009/0298149 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Wang teaches a method for controlled pretreatment and/or enzymatic hydrolysis of a lignocellulosic material (Abstract).
Wang teaches the method comprising selecting a lignocellulosic material to be pretreated, subjecting said lignocellulosic material to a suboptimal pretreatment process to form a first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition, subjecting said first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition to mechanical refining to form a second lignocellulosic composition comprising lignocellulosic particles, and subjecting said second lignocellulosic composition to enzymatic hydrolysis (Figs. 9 and 24).
Wang teaches the method wherein said suboptimal pretreatment process is a pretreatment process, which after enzymatic hydrolysis generates a cellulose-to-sugar conversion yield of less than 50% of the theoretical cellulose-to-sugar conversion yield for said selected lignocellulosic material (Figs. 15, 36 and 39; Tables 4, 9 and 18; Paragraph 0268, The two high-pH pretreatments resulted in very low cellulose conversion of less than 30% and EHGY of less than 15% wt od wood, implying that neutral and alkaline sulfite pretreatments are not effective for biomass conversion through enzymatic saccharification).
With regard to Claim 2, Wang teaches the method wherein at least 30%, e.g. at least 35%, e.g. at least 50%, e.g. at least 70% of the lignocellulosic particles of said first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition has an average diameter above 500 μm, such as above 600 μm (Paragraph 0240, The thickness of the accepted chips ranged from 2 to 6 mm. The source com stover was hammer milled to an approximate size of 5x20 mm).
With regard to Claim 3, Wang teaches the method wherein said method further comprises the step of evaluating the optimal process parameters for the selected lignocellulosic material to be pretreated prior to said suboptimal pretreatment step b) (Paragraph 0071, Certain aspects of the present invention was demonstrated over a range of operating conditions, such as chemical dosage, acid (pH), etc., using softwood, hardwood, agriculture residuals and waste paper; Paragraph 0097, Temperature governs the steam pressure within the reactor. Higher temperatures translate to higher pressures, therefore increasing the difference between reactor pressure and atmospheric pressure…The temperature and retention time may vary in the range of about 190-250° C. and 1-10 min, respectively, depending on the feedstocks).
With regard to Claim 4, Wang teaches the method wherein said suboptimal pretreatment process involves pretreating said lignocellulosic material in at least one suboptimal process parameter range, outside of an optimal process parameter range for said selected lignocellulosic material (Paragraph 0071, Certain aspects of the present invention was demonstrated over a range of operating conditions, such as chemical dosage, acid (pH), etc., using softwood, hardwood, agriculture residuals and waste paper; Paragraph 0097, Temperature governs the steam pressure within the reactor. Higher temperatures translate to higher pressures, therefore increasing the difference between reactor pressure and atmospheric pressure…The temperature and retention time may vary in the range of about 190-250° C. and 1-10 min, respectively, depending on the feedstocks; Paragraph 0268, The two high-pH pretreatments resulted in very low cellulose conversion of less than 30% and EHGY of less than 15% wt od wood, implying that neutral and alkaline sulfite pretreatments are not effective for biomass conversion through enzymatic saccharification).
With regard to Claims 5-7, Wang teaches the method wherein said suboptimal or optimal process parameter is selected from pH, temperature, pressure or residence time in the pretreatment unit, wherein said suboptimal or optimal process parameter is the temperature, and wherein at least two suboptimal process parameter ranges are involved in said suboptimal pretreatment; said suboptimal process parameters being selected from a pH, temperature, residence time in the pretreatment unit, and pressure (Paragraph 0071, Certain aspects of the present invention was demonstrated over a range of operating conditions, such as chemical dosage, acid (pH), etc., using softwood, hardwood, agriculture residuals and waste paper; Paragraph 0097, Temperature governs the steam pressure within the reactor. Higher temperatures translate to higher pressures, therefore increasing the difference between reactor pressure and atmospheric pressure…The temperature and retention time may vary in the range of about 190-250° C. and 1-10 min, respectively, depending on the feedstocks; Paragraph 0268, The two high-pH pretreatments resulted in very low cellulose conversion of less than 30% and EHGY of less than 15% wt od wood, implying that neutral and alkaline sulfite pretreatments are not effective for biomass conversion through enzymatic saccharification).
With regard to Claim 8, Wang teaches the method wherein said suboptimal pretreatment process is a pretreatment process, which after enzymatic hydrolysis generates a cellulose-to-sugar conversion yield of less than 30% of the theoretical cellulose-to-sugar conversion yield for said lignocellulosic material (Figs. 15, 36 and 39; Tables 4, 9 and 18; Paragraph 0268, The two high-pH pretreatments resulted in very low cellulose conversion of less than 30% and EHGY of less than 15% wt od wood, implying that neutral and alkaline sulfite pretreatments are not effective for biomass conversion through enzymatic saccharification).
With regard to Claim 9, Wang teaches the method wherein said suboptimal pretreatment comprises steam explosion (Claim 23; Example 10; Paragraph 0290, Acid (such as using SO2 or sulfuric acid)----catalyzed steam explosion pretreatment has been applied to both softwood and hardwood).
With regard to Claim 10, Wang teaches the method wherein at least 50%, such as at least 70%, preferably at least 80% of the lignocellulosic particles of said second lignocellulosic composition has an average diameter in the range of from 0.1 to 500 μm, preferably from 0.1 to 200 μm (Tables 14 and 15).
With regard to Claims 11 and 14-15, Wang teaches the method further comprising the steps of analyzing said first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition after step b) to obtain a data set reflecting the degree of said pretreatment, and controlling said mechanical refining of said step c) in response to said data set, wherein said step of analyzing said first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition is an automated online or inline analysis, and wherein said step of analyzing said suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition is performed by means of an image analysis method (Fig. 8; Paragraph 0236, The substrate specific surface and size are characterized in-situ using the wet imaging technique described in this invention. The online measured size-reduction energy consumption (in terms of disk miller rotor torque or electric energy) data along with the in-situ substrate size/specific surface are used to optimize disk milling process conditions, such as disk plate gap, milling solids-loading, etc.).
With regard to Claim 12, Wang teaches the method wherein said step of controlling said mechanical refining comprises controlling at least one parameter of said mechanical refining; said parameter being selected from the energy input, specific edge load or the electrical power to be used during mechanical refining, the residence time in the mechanical refiner, the feed rate or consistency of said suboptimally pretreated composition into the mechanical refiner (Paragraph 0236, The substrate specific surface and size are characterized in-situ using the wet imaging technique described in this invention. The online measured size-reduction energy consumption (in terms of disk miller rotor torque or electric energy) data along with the in-situ substrate size/specific surface are used to optimize disk milling process conditions, such as disk plate gap, milling solids-loading, etc.; Paragraph 0237, This post-chemical pretreatment size-reduction process flow design has several benefits: (1) it takes advantage of chemical pretreatment to alter feedstock structure to reduce energy consumption in the subsequent size-reduction (disk milling) process… it can reduce thermal energy consumption in chemical pretreatment).
With regard to Claim 13, Wang teaches the method wherein said step of analyzing said suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition comprises evaluating the amount of sugar and/or sugar degradation bi products in said first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition, evaluating the proportion between different sugars and/or sugar bi products in said first, pretreated lignocellulosic composition, evaluating the amount of pseudo-lignin formed, or evaluating the size, shape and/or degree of darkness of the components of the first, suboptimally pretreated lignocellulosic composition (Fig. 24; Table 1, Weights of wood components and % loss after sulfite pretreatment at different sulfuric acid charge on oven-dry (od) wood; Paragraph 0269, Klason lignin (acid-insoluble lignin) removal was only 4.4% at sulfuric acid charge 7.36% (pH around 1.72, c.f. Table 1), indicating significant lignin condensation might have occurred).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brandt et al. (US 9765478 B2) teaches treatment of lignocellulosic biomass to dissolve lignin with an ionic liquid composition.
Dou et al. (“Post-treatment mechanical refining as a method to improve overall sugar recovery of steam pretreated hybrid poplar”) teaches the effect of mechanical refining on sugar yield from biomass.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736