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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “IN a long flight tube…” recited on page 12 line 11 of the instant specification is believed to be a typographical error meant to recite “In a long flight tube…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both the chamber 1, see page 12 for example, and the treatment system, see page 10 line 14. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein a gaseous material comprises silane”. While it is understood that “a gaseous material” is “the gaseous material” recited in claim 1, it is suggested the claim be amended to recite “the gaseous material” and reflect antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites MTS. While this is understood in view of the disclosure to be methyl trichlorosilane (see page 7 line 21), it is suggested the claim recite the full term before using the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 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 6 recites “removing excess moisture”. It is unclear as to what would and would not be considered “excess” moisture. For example, it is unclear as to what is considered typical moisture, and what would be considered excess and as to how such a distinction is made.
Claim 7 recites “increasing nutritional value”. As the term “increasing” is a relative term which must be compared to a set benchmark, and no benchmark has been identified the claim method is unclear. For example, it is unclear as to if said increase is compared to the gaseous treated organic material, or the organic material provide for treatment, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cameron et al (US 8940366).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Cameron et al (Cameron) teaches a system and method for the treatment or enhancement of an organic compound, including sugars, wood, and cellulose material, by exposure to gaseous material (column 2 line 59 through column 3 line 12, column 4 lines 21-27, column 5 lines 25-27, and claim 11).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Cameron teaches that the gaseous material comprises silane, preferably in the form of trichlororomethylsilane (MTS) (column 3 lines 38-43 and column 4 lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the claimed limitation is unclear. Regardless, as Cameron teaches the treatment chamber must be kept in a dry atmosphere, that excess materials are removed, and that the moisture of the treated material is reduced (column 5 lines 35-47, and column 5 lines 57 through column 6 line 12), the teachings of Cameron are considered to encompass the step of removing “excess” moisture from the organic material.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the claimed limitation is unclear. Regardless, as Cameron teaches of treating the same material as claimed and disclosed, i.e. organic material, including cellulose materials, with the same active ingredient, i.e. silane gas, the same result would be expected or alternatively considered obvious. It is additionally noted that for what or whom the nutrition is increased is not specified in the claim.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sturm et al (US 2019/0001299).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Sturm et al (Sturm) teaches a system and method for the treatment or enhancement of an organic compound, including bagasse material, by exposure to gaseous material including silane (paragraphs 7-9, 90, 107, 118, and 120).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the claimed limitation is unclear. Regardless, as Strum teaches of drying (paragraph 100), the teachings of Strum are considered to encompass the step of removing “excess” moisture from the organic material.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the claimed limitation is unclear. Regardless, as Sturm teaches of treating the same material as claimed and disclosed, i.e. organic material, including bagasse, with the same active ingredient, i.e. silane gas, the same result would be expected or alternatively considered obvious. Alternatively, as Sturm teaches the cellulose material is preferably free of contaminants (paragraph 98), the method of Sturm would anticipate a step of removing contaminants or selecting material which was contaminant free, which would naturally increase the nutritional value as it would provide a product with a greater concentration of nutritional components. Furthermore, it is noted that for what or whom the nutrition is increased is not specified in the claim.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al (US 8940366).
As discussed above, Cameron teaches a system and method for the treatment or enhancement of an organic compound, including sugars and cellulose material, by exposure to gaseous material.
Cameron is not specific to the organic material as bagasse as recited in claim 2, however, as Cameron teaches the method is effective against water, mold, fire, and/or insect intrusion and damage (column 2 lines 21-26) and teaches that the treatment material includes cellulose materials and sugar (column 3 lines 3-10); and as bagasse is material from sugar product which primarily contains cellulose, the use of bagasse as the treatment material of Cameron would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To use a species from the disclosed genus would have been obvious and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights