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 § 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”),
Where the mass flow of steam is at least 3 times the mass flow of particulate matter (Page 3 Lines 33-35, “Furthermore the modulus, that is to say the ratio between the mass flow of steam compared to the mass flow of particulate matter, is at least 3, for example 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, or 5.0”),
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 also 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”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Remarks, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendment. The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 in view of North and further in view of Mussatto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10 under North, Mussato, and Zaher has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 103 in view of Barr and Mussatto have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Even with the amendment of claim 1 in regards to the limitation requiring, “separation […] after no more than 3 seconds in the reactor duct”, the separation of particles in the prior art is downstream of the reactor duct after no more than 3 seconds in the reactor duct. As Barr teaches that the particles pass through the duct in 0.5s (Page 3 Line 37 – Page 4 Line 2), any separation after fulfills the claim limitation. Since Barr and the instant application both teach the use of a cyclone for separation of particles after being in the reactor duct, the amounts that would be separated would be the same, or at least 75% by mass as claimed. Even if the separation is not at least 75% or above, it would have been obvious to add another cyclone or filter in order to maximize the product yield and avoid waste production in the reaction as discussed above.
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
Prosecution Insights