Detailed Office Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 3, 12-15, and 21 are canceled. Claims 23-25 are new. Claims 1 and 22 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 16-20, and 22-25 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets “strong acids and bases” as “strong acids and strong bases”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities: “strong acids and bases” should be amended to “strong acids and strong bases” to make the language clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
In light of amendment the previous art rejections have been withdrawn. RAMUS uses nitric acid which is a strong acid.
The Examiner has applied the LI reference which rejects all the claims but for claim 17. LI teaches an alkaline liquor from the use of ammonium sulfite. The Examiner has also applied the KAZUMASA reference to the claims but for claims 4, 5, and 9. As carbonization occurs to the wood of KAZUMASA it is not clear if any lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, humic, or fulvic acids survive the carbonization before separation of the wood vinegar. Some may but the Examiner does not have any supporting evidence to those facts. A search of other “wood vinegars” compositions do not show the presence of these compounds.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-11, 16-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2004300419A KAZUMASA et al., hereinafter KAZUMASA.
The Examiner refers to the attached English language machine translation.
As for claim 1 and 22, KAZUMASA discloses pretreating wood [0008] with a modification step and a separation step [0009]. Neither step use strong acids or strong bases. The modification step uses hot water/steam [0009 and 0011]. The separation step separates filtrate from a cake of biomass [0014] using a filter press of centrifugal filter [0014] to form the liquid product. The separation step can be at room temperature [0014]; therefore the product is not exposed to a temperature of over 350 degrees F (the Examiner would agree that the wood itself is exposed to a temperature of over 350 degrees F; 200-380 degrees C [0009]; however this is wood treatment temperature not the treatment temperature of the liquid product ). The filtrate is made into a fertilizer additive [0030].
As for claim 2, KAZUMASA does not add external heat energy during the separation step [0099 and 0011]. The separation step of the liquid product can be at room temperature [0014]. The mechanical separation process of pressing or centrifuging will apply shear forces.
As for claims 6, 8, and 10, the filtrate comprises organic acids including acetic acids [0016].
As for claim 7, as substantially the same material is treated (wood) it is the Examiners position that at least some of the minerals present in wood will be present in the liquid extracted from the wood.
As for claim 11, the liquid product contains less than 1% tar which are solid particles [0016].
As for claim 16 and 25, as substantially the same starting material is treated (wood) and separated from liquid by mechanical action is the Examiners position that substantially all the volatile organic compounds will be present.
As for claim 17, the filtrate has an acidic pH [0025].
As for claims 18-20, the liquid filtrate acts as a plant growth, fertilizer, and soil conditioner [0030].
As for claims 23 and 24, the filtrate has multiple phenols [0017].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 16, 18-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN105625075A LI et al., hereinafter LI.
The Examiner refers to the attached English language machine translation.
As for claims 1 and 22, LI discloses pretreating wood [0018] with a modification step and a separation step [0009, 0014, 0039]. The modification step uses ammonium sulfite [0020]. Ammonium sulfite is a weak base. The separation step separates filtrate from the pulp by squeezing using an extruder [0014, 0039]. No heat is added during squeezing/extruding [0014] therefore the product is not exposed to a temperature of over 350 degrees F. The sulfonation treatment of LI occurs at 90 -200 degrees C [0014] which overlap with less than 176.6 C (less than 350 degrees F). However, this is not the liquid being treated but the wood biomass being treated. Further, the disclosed range is overlaps with substantial specificity to the instant claimed range or makes a prima facie case of obviousness. The liquid black liquor filtrate is made into a fertilizer [0014].
As for claim 2, LI does not state that external energy is added during squeezing/extruding [0014, 0039]. Squeezing/extruding applies a shear force.
As for claim 4, black liquors comprise cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose. LI specifically, discloses lignin [0025]. The hydrolysis treatment removes hemicellulose [0024]. As not all of the liquid is removed prior to sulfonation some hemicellulose will be present in the black liquor after the sulfonation treatment extracted by squeezing/extrusion. Further, there will be some yield loss of cellulose into the liquor.
As for claim 5, the dissolved solids of the black liquor are 6% which suggests that the lignin is 6% or less [0098].
As for claims 6, 8, and 10, the hydrolysis treatment prior to the sulfonation treatment produces acetic acid [0006]. As not all of the liquid is removed prior to sulfonation some acetic acid will be present in the black liquor after the sulfonation treatment extracted by squeezing/extrusion.
As for claim 7, as substantially the same material is treated (wood) it is the Examiners position that at least some of the minerals present in wood will be present in the liquid extracted from the wood. Further, as LI uses ammonium sulfite nitrogen and sulfur will be present in the black liquor.
As for claim 9, It is the Examiners position that the ammonium sulfate will extract humic and fulvic acids present given that the applicant’s invention in the speciation does not require any chemicals at all.
As for claim 11, it is the Examiners position that the filtration by extrusion/pressing will extrude some fibers/fines into the liquid black liquor.
As for claim 16 and 25, as substantially the same starting material is treated (wood) and separated from liquid by mechanical action is the Examiners position that substantially all the volatile organic compounds will be present.
As for claims 18-20, the liquid filtrate acts as a fertilizer and will increase growth and simulate metabolites. The black liquor comprises nitrogen and sulfur. Further, it comprises lignin.
As for claims 23 and 24, the filtrate has multiple phenols from lignin. It is the Examiners position that the ammonium sulfate will extract tannins present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748