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 .
Applicant’s response to restriction requirement filed 7/28/26 is acknowledged. Applicant elected Group I, claims 3-11 and newly added claims 20-25, without traverse.
Claims 1-2, and 12-19 are canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 3-11 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over
Purdy et al., “Purdy” (US 2022/0170206, 6/2022, see also its corresponding US patent No. 12,252,844), 3/2025).
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).
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.
Purdy in its abstract teaches the following:
Method of delignification of plant material, said method comprising said plant material comprising cellulose fibers and lignin; exposing said plant material requiring to a composition comprising (see instant claims11 and 24):
an acid (such as sulfuric acid);
a capping agent; and
a peroxide (see also [0011] of the specification);
for a period of time sufficient to remove substantially all (at least 80%) of the lignin present on said plant material. Also disclosed are compositions to accomplish such delignification and processes using such. Said method can inherently increase and stabilize the volume of methane produced from a biogas digester, see claim 3, and inherently produces a substantially lignin free cellulose with hemicellulose content of less than 15% and a Kappa number of less than 10, see claim 23.
In [0077] according to Purdy, its method tested wood chips such as that from wheat straw and hemp straw (see [0081]) which are crop wastes, as substrate plant materials in its delignification process (see claims 21-22).
In [0080], Purdy recites:
“[0080] The ability of a composition to remove lignin from a wood sample was evaluated by performing a number of experiments with varying molar ratios of several components. A desirable result is one which dissolves all of the lignin in the wood and leaves behind only high-quality cellulose. The ability of the tested composition to remove lignin was evaluated against a sample of lignin as well as a sample of cellulose fibers. Ideally, a composition must not dissolve/destroy more than 20% of the cellulose present in the sample. Preferably, a composition must not dissolve more than 15% of the cellulose present in the sample. More preferably, a composition must not dissolve more than 10% of the cellulose present in the sample. Ideally as well, a treated sample of wood should not contain more than 20% by mass of residual lignin. Preferably, a treated sample of wood should not contain more than 10% by mass of residual lignin. More preferably, a treated sample of wood should not contain more than 5% by mass of residual lignin.”.
Therefore, it is believed that the teachings of Purdy as a whole, render this invention obvious.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over
Purdy (cited above) in view of Young (US patent No. 4,526,791, 1985).
As mentioned above, Purdy teaches a method of delignification of plant material, said method comprising said plant material comprising cellulose fibers and lignin; exposing said plant material requiring to a composition comprising (see instant claims11 and 24):
an acid (such as sulfuric acid);
a capping agent; and
a peroxide (see also [0011] of the specification);
for a period of time sufficient to remove substantially all (at least 80%) of the lignin present on said plant material. Also disclosed are compositions to accomplish such delignification and processes using such. Said method can inherently increase and stabilize the volume of methane produced from a biogas digester.
In [0077] according to Purdy, its method tested wood chips such as that from wheat straw and hemp straw (see [0081]) which are crop wastes, as substrate plant materials in its delignification process (see claims 21-22).
Purdy does not teach an organic material rich in nitrogen (such as manure, crops, crops waste, grass) to be combined with lignin-free cellulose to provide an animal feed having a C/N ratio from 20:1 to 30/1.
Young teaches an integrated method (see abstract) where animal manure and crop wastes, are combined (see claim 1) and then converted into proteinaceous animal feed products and methane by a fermentation process (see figure in page 1). However, the animal feed of Young inherently has low C/N ratios because Young only treated its crop waste with mild alkaline solution
Before, the effective filing of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to start with the method of Purdy and combine manure sludge of Young with the substantially lignin free wheat stover of Purdy according to the teachings of Young before preparing high levels of methane and an animal feed.
One ordinary skill in the art is motivated in combining the manure sludge of Young with the substantially lignin free of Purdy according to Young, because such integrated process will simultaneously produce 2 desirable products : (1) high amounts of methane (as a fermentation product, as Purdy’s wheat straw is substantially lignin-free and (2) an animal feed with higher C/N ratios.
Further, in column 5, according to Young, its system with reference to the drawing in page 1, may be run continuously or in a cyclic batch mode with any convenient cycle time, such as, 24 hours. In such a cyclic batch mode, the anaerobic digestion unit is fed intermittently and at the same time an equivalent volume of digester sludge is withdrawn and used to prepare the medium for the aerobic fermentation. Similarly, at the end of the fermentation period, about 90% of the fermenter contents may be removed for further processing while the remaining 10% is used as inoculum for the next batch.
Therefore, it is believed that Purdy, in view of Young renders claims 21-22 and 25 obvious.
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.
Claims 3-11, 20-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10 of copending Application No. 18/473620. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of instant claims (generic) embraces the scope of claims in said copending application (species).
Claims 3-11, 20-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 15- 18 of copending Application No. 18/452,169. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of instant claims (generic) embraces the scope of claims in said copending application (species).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3-11, 20-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-10 of U.S. Patent No.12,709,762. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of instant claims (generic) embraces the scope of said patented claims (species).
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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 L 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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights