DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
In line 9 of claim 1, it is claimed that the particulate material is “heated rapidly”. It is unclear to the amount of time “rapidly” would be considered as.
In lines 10-11 of claim 1, it is unclear if separating the particles from the flowing mixture after no more than 3 seconds is that the separation from the flowing mixture is completed in less than 3 seconds or if the flowing mixture is introduced to the separation step after no more than 3 seconds in the reactor duct. For the purposes of this examination, it will be interpreted that the flowing mixture is introduced to the separation step after no more than 3 seconds in the reactor duct.
As claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the indefiniteness, claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barr (WO2021171014) in view of Massutto (“Brewers’ spent grain: generation, characteristics, and potential applications”, Journal of Cereal Science, Pages 1-14, 2006).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Even though the apparatus of Barr is used for thermolysis, the process for obtaining sugar for fermented grain comprises the same features of the apparatus of Barr.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
In regards to claim 1, Barr teaches a process for where a biomass that contains hemicellulose is hydrolyzed (Page 5 Lines 20-24, “Hence in a further aspect the present invention provides a plant to process particulate biomass, comprising a hemicellulose hydrolysis reactor, means to feed the particulate biomass into the hemicellulose hydrolysis reactor, means to separate water and water-soluble compounds from a resulting particulate material, and means to feed the resulting particulate material to the cellulose thermolysis plant described above.”),
Where the aqueous phase of products is separated and fed into a reactor to heat rapidly along with steam (Page 5 Lines 32-33, “The separating of the particulate material from the water and water-soluble compounds may involve a filter or press, and may involving a rinsing or washing step”; Page 7 Lines 20-23, “The material is then introduced into a hopper 18 with a twin screw outlet, and thence into a thermolysis reactor 20 in which the solid material is entrained into a flow of superheated steam at a significantly higher temperature, for example 550°C”),
Separating the particles again after no more than 3 seconds and then condensed (Page 7 Lines 24-26, “The particles are effectively subjected to a temperature in the range for example 370°C to 410°C or 420°C for a short period which may for example be between 0.4 seconds and 1 second”; Page 7 Lines 28-30, “After passing through the thermolysis reactor 20 the particulate material, which at this stage is a solid lignin char 24, may be separated from the vapours and gases by passing through a cyclone 21, and the vapours then condensed in a condenser 22”; ).
Barr does not explicitly teach separating at least 75% by mass of the particles. However, as both the instant application and Barr both use a cyclone for separation, the amount of particles separated would be at least 75% by mass as the separation apparatus is the same (Page 4, Lines 13-14, “The plant for performing thermolysis of cellulose may also incorporate a cyclone downstream of the reactor duct to remove and collect entrained particulate material”). If the separation of particles is not 75% or above, it would have been obvious to further separate, for instance by adding another cyclone or filter, in order to recover more product and avoid waste produced in the reaction.
Barr does not explicitly teach the use of fermented grain in the disclosed process. However, Mussatto teaches that Brewer’s spent grain (BSG) can be used to produce sugars due to its cellulose content (Abstract, “BSG is a lignocellulosic material containing about 17% cellulose, 28% non-cellulosic polysaccharides, chiefly arabinoxylans, and 28% lignin”; Conclusion, “On the other hand, considering that carbohydrates are the major components, more attention should be paid to its conversion into soluble and fermentable sugars”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fermented grain, such as BSG, as BSG is a known lignocellulosic material that contains cellulose which is in the same genus of material that is required by Barr, yielding predictable results (Abstract, “BSG is a lignocellulosic material containing about 17% cellulose, 28% non-cellulosic polysaccharides, chiefly arabinoxylans, and 28% lignin”).
In regards to claim 2, Barr teaches that the length of the reactor duct and the mass flow rate of steam are such to ensure that the particles reach the end of the reactor duct in less than 1 second (Page 3-4, “The length of the reactor duct should be such as to ensure that the particles reach the end of the reactor duct in less than 1 s. For example the reactor duct may be of length 6.0 m if the steam velocity is 12 m/s, so that the particles take about 0.5 s to pass through the reactor duct”).
In regards to claim 3, Barr teaches an apparatus that comprises an eductor, entry chamber, venturi-shaped exit channel, nozzle, sloping deflector plate above the nozzle, inlet port that feeds into the entry chamber and sloping deflector plate, and a venturi-shaped exit channel that is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the reactor duct. Barr also teaches that steam is supplied to flow through the nozzle at a temperature above 450°C (Page 2 Lines 31-38, “According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a plant for performing thermolysis of cellulose, comprising a thermolysis reactor, the thermolysis reactor comprising a reactor duct having a longitudinal axis, and an eductor at one end of the reactor duct, the eductor comprising an entry chamber and a venturi-shaped exit channel, a nozzle, a sloping deflector plate above the nozzle, and an inlet port through which particulate material may be fed onto the deflector plate and into the entry chamber, the nozzle and the venturi-shaped exit channel both being aligned with the longitudinal axis of the reactor duct, and means for providing superheated steam at a temperature above 450°C and for supplying the superheated steam to flow through the nozzle”).
In regards to claim 4, Barr teaches a process where steam is supplied above 500°C and at a pressure of less than 1.5 bar(a) (Page 3 Lines 9-10, “During operation the superheated steam may be at a temperature of for example 550°C, and may be fed to the nozzle at a pressure of for example less than 1.5 bar(a)”).
In regards to claim 5, Barr teaches that a cyclone can be incorporated to separate particulate material (Page 4, Lines 13-14, “The plant for performing thermolysis of cellulose may also incorporate a cyclone downstream of the reactor duct to remove and collect entrained particulate material”).
In regards to claim 6, Barr teaches that condensing of sugars, steam, and other vapors can be achieved by direct contact with a cooling liquid (Page 4 Lines 22-23, “The plant for performing thermolysis of cellulose may also incorporate a condenser, to condense the steam and the sugars and other vapours produced by the thermolysis”; Page 4 Lines 25-26, “Alternatively it may use direct contact with a cooling liquid”).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, Barr teaches two successive cooling devices, where the first acts as a desuperheater while the second allows for full or partial condensation (Page 4 Lines 26-31, “By way of example there may be two successive cooling devices, the first acting as a desuperheater, for example by spraying a liquid so as to decrease the vapour temperature to just above the saturation point. The second may be arranged to achieve full or at least partial condensation of all the steam and vapours present, and may for example feed a coolant liquid onto trays so that coolant overflowing from the trays cascades down in counter current to the hot vapours”).
In regards to claim 9, Barr teaches that the condensing of the sugars, steam, and other vapors is cooled to no lower than 60° to ensure that no blockages are formed within the apparatus (Page 11 Lines 17-18, “During operation the quantity of water provided to the second condenser 82 is such as to ensure that the outgoing gases, indicated by arrow D, remain at a temperature of at least 60°C; Page 12 Lines 7-9, “It has been found that operating at a temperature no lower than 60°C ensures that any tar that may be present, as a potential product of thermolysis, remains sufficiently fluid that it does not form blockages”).
In regards to claim 10, Barr teaches that a fan is present downstream of the condenser to maintain gas flow and ensure desired pressure (Page 4 Lines 33-35,” The plant may also include a fan downstream of the condenser, to maintain flow of any gases or vapours that are not condensed by the condenser, and to generate the required underpressure in the reactor”).
In regards to claim 11, Barr teaches using steam/water at a temperature between 150°C and 180°C and a pressure between 6 and 10 bar after addition of an acid (Page 6 Lines 33-38, “After performing any such pre-treatment, the biomass is impregnated 12 with a strong acid, for example with dilute sulphuric acid (i.e. about 1 mole/L) typically at a rate of between 1- 2 wt% of the dry biomass, before being introduced by a screw conveyor into a reactor 14 in which the biomass is contacted with steam/water at a temperature of between 150° and 180°C and a pressure of between 6 bar and 10 bar, for example at 165°C and a pressure of 6.5 bar (gauge); there is little air present”).
In regards to claim 12, Barr teaches that the separation of particulate material can involve a filter or press and a rinsing or washing step after hydrolysis (Page 5 Lines 26-30, In a further aspect the present invention provides a process for processing particulate biomass, the process comprising subjecting the biomass to hemicellulose hydrolysis in a hemicellulose hydrolysis reactor; separating water and water-soluble compounds from a resulting particulate material, and then subjecting the resulting particulate material to the cellulose thermolysis process descried above”; Page 5 Lines 32-33, “The separating of the particulate material from the water and water-soluble compounds may involve a filter or press, and may involving a rinsing or washing step”).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North (WO2011039635) in view of Mussatto (“Brewers’ spent grain: generation, characteristics, and potential applications”, Journal of Cereal Science, Pages 1-14, 2006).
In regards to claim 1, North teaches a method for obtaining sugar that involves hydrolyzing cellulose (Page 4 Lines 16-17, “The cellulose hydrolysis reactor may apply only steam to the biomass solid, or it may apply a mixture of steam and another gas”; Page 5, Lines 1-2, “The cellulose hydrolysis reactor may fully hydrolyze the cellulose to produce a vapor of cellulosic sugars and a lignin char”),
Separating the aqueous phase containing the products of the hydrolysis of the cellulose from particulate material (Page 24 Lines 15-18, “In some embodiments, the sugars are removed from the biomass in a single or in multiple stages, using additional water and sequences of washing and liquid/solid separation. For example, the C5 and C6 sugars may be removed using a counter-current water flow to leach the C5 and C6 hemicellulose sugars from the biomass solids”),
Feeding the particulate material in a reactor along with steam at above 450° to heat the material (Page 29 Lines 22-23, “Flash thermolysis may be performed using a continuous process, such as by feeding the biomass into a continuous steam reactor”; Page 29 Lines 31-32, “In some embodiments, the superheated steam and/or gas may be applied to the
biomass at a temperature of between about 350 and about 550 degrees Celsius”),
Separating the particles from the flowing mixture (Page 31 Lines 11-12, “The vaporized C6 sugars and volatiles may next be separated from the remaining biomass and collected”),
And condensing the vapors from the flowing mixture (Page 31 Lines 17-19, “The cellulosic sugars may then be extracted from the condensed liquid, such as by any of the technologies listed earlier for hemicellulose products”).
In regards to the separation after no more than 3 seconds, North teaches that some embodiments can have particles flow for 1.5 to 5 seconds in the reactor (Page 30 Lines 13-15, “In some embodiments, thermolysis can take approximately 30 seconds to one minute (including one-half to five seconds in reactor”). North also teaches changing the conditions including reaction times depending on the desired product of the reaction (Page 30 Lines 17-20, “The reaction conditions of the first cellulose reactor, including temperature, pressure, reaction time, and carrier gas, may be selected such that the cellulose hydrolysis reaction favors production of one or more first cellulosic products”). It would have been obvious to change the reaction time in the reactor duct based on the feedstock used, as North teaches avoiding greatly altering the chemical composition of cellulose (Page 30 Lines 7-11, “In some embodiments, the presence of steam and the use of a temperature that is sufficiently low may be selected to substantially avoid pyrolysis of the biomass, which would cause the cellulose to form a much larger proportion of various hydrocarbons such as tars, oils
and gases”).
In regards to the mass flow rate of steam being three times the mass flow of the particulate matter, as the mass flow rates are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the mass flow rates of the steam and particulate matter, with the amount of time that the particles are in contact with the steam to react both increasing/decreasing as the mass flow rate is increased/decreased, the precise mass flow rate required would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed mass flow rate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the mass flow rate in the primary reference to obtain the desired balance between the [unclaimed parameters affected by claimed parameter] as taught by secondary reference (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
North teaches using a cellulosic waste (Pages 11-12) but does not explicitly teach that a fermented grain is used as the starting material for obtaining sugar. Mussatto teaches that Brewer’s spent grain (BSG) can be used to produce sugars due to its cellulose content (Conclusion, “On the other hand, considering that carbohydrates are the major components, more attention should be paid to its conversion into soluble and fermentable sugars”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fermented grain, such as BSG, as BSG is a lignocellulosic material which is in the same genus of material that can be used by the process of North (Abstract, “BSG is a lignocellulosic material containing about 17% cellulose, 28% non-cellulosic polysaccharides, chiefly arabinoxylans, and 28% lignin”).
In regards to claim 2, North does not teach that the length of the reactor duct and the mass flow rate of steam are such to ensure that the particles reach the end of the reactor duct in less than 1 second. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the mass flow rate in the primary reference to obtain the desired balance of mass flow rate of steam and length of the reactor duct in order to ensure a complete reaction while minimizing blockage of the apparatus.
In regards to claim 4, North teaches that steam is supplied at a temperature above 500°C and at a pressure of less than 1.5 bar (Abstract, “The methods and systems
may vaporize the cellulose in a continuous steam reactor at a temperature of about 400 - 550C and a pressure of about 1 - 3 bara”).
In regards to claim 5, North teaches a process where the separation of the particles from the flowing mixture is carried out using a cyclone downstream of the reactor duct (Page 21 Lines 12-14, “The separator 40, such as a cyclonic separator, separates the solid biomass from the steam and volatilized components”).
In regards to claim 6, North teaches a process where condensing of the sugars, steam, and other vapors is achieved by direct contact with a cooling liquid (Page 20, “The volatile components released by the steam explosion process can be collected, such as by allowing the vapors to pass to a gas collection device such as a condenser, such as a direct contact condenser, scrubber or similar apparatus”; Page 24 Lines 21-23, “The flash steam, which will
contain entrained sugar-laden liquor, may be condensed in a direct or indirect condenser
and the recovered liquor sent for sugar recovery”).
In regards to claim 10, North teaches the use of a fan for gas flow and a desired pressure in the reactor (Page 21 Lines 23-24, “The remaining steam and gases recirculate back to the blower 36 and through the steam loop 32 for reuse”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North (WO2011039635) in view of Mussatto (“Brewers’ spent grain: generation, characteristics, and potential applications”, Journal of Cereal Science, Pages 1-14, 2006), and further in view of Zaher (CN104245073A).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, North and Mussatto do not teach successive cooling devices where the first cooling device is just above the saturation point and the second achieves full or at least partial condensation of the steam and vapors present.
Zaher teaches a method that involves using multiple devices of condensation to a vapor stream (Para. 0115, “. In some embodiments, the vapor stream can be sprayed using a condensate solution (e.g., a spray nozzle); “The vapor stream can then be contacted with a condensate containing the product alcohol or another alkyl alcohol to form a condensate containing the product alcohol). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use successive cooling devices as it facilitates condensation of a vapor stream (Para. 0115, “To facilitate condensation, the vapor stream can be brought into contact with the condensate solution”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736