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 17-18, 19, 22-31 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 17, line 9 says “has a pH of less than, and”. The Claim does not recite the pH. The specification recites three different ranges: less than 1, less than 0.5 or a pH of about 6 (see para. 49 and 68 of the published specification).
Claims 18, 19, 22-31 are indefinite due to their dependency on claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko (JP 2010/285697) and in view of Dietz (US Pub.: 2016/0298294).
Hideko describes a method of bleaching pulp (title) from lignocellulose material (see Technical field). The process involves adding a combination of hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid (pg. 2, last para). The amount of sulfuric acid is about 20-70 mass % (pg. 2, last para.). Furthermore, the ratio of sulfuric acid to hydrogen peroxide is from 1:1 to 5:1 (pg. 2, last para). These materials are added to lignin, which contains sulfonic acid (pg. 3, para. 7). The lignin-based material is in the mixture from 1-40wt% (pg. 3, last para). Since the lignin contains sulfonic acid, this can be considered the “sulfonic acid containing” composition of the claim.
The reference explains that other compounds such as amines can be used in the mixture (pg. 3, para. 4), but does not state how much is in the mixture.
Dietz describes a method for bleaching pulp (title). Dietz explains that during the bleaching of pulp, a complexing agent is added to the mixture in order to reduce the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide and give better bleaching results (para. 19). Examples of complexing agents include a number of amine-based compositions (para. 19). As to the amount, Dietz explains that an amount from 0.05-1% of the amine can be used (para. 19). In some instances, the amount of pulp, which contains the sulfonic acid and can be considered part of the “sulfonic acid moiety” is from 2-30% (para. 27). The ratio of amine: sulfonic can be from 1:2 in this case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an amine-based complexing agent in an amount of 0.05 to 1wt%, as taught by Dietz for use with the paper bleaching steps of Hideko because this amount is known to reduce the amount of H2O2 needed and gives better bleaching results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko and DIetz as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Larnicol (FR 2747406).
Hideko and Dietz describe use of sulfonic acid, but do not describe on the sulfonic acid groups listed in Claim 18.
Larnicol describes a process for delignification of paper (title). The mixture was combined with a peroxy acid, that include peroxide, sulfuric acid and methanesulfonic acid (see page 6, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ methanesulfonic acid as the sulfonic acid group, as taught by Larnicol for use with the lignin process means of Hideko and Dietz because this is a known source of sulfonic acid for use in processing lignin.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko, DIetz and Larnicol as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Turunen (CN 101925704).
Hideko and Dietz describes the addition of amines, but does not describe that the amount used is less than 300 g/mol.
Turunen describes a method for producing paper (title) from cellulose fibers (abstract) that produces a delignification effect (para. 14). The solution includes an amine compound in an amount of 180 g/mol (Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the amine of Hideko, DIetz and Larnicol in an amount of 180 g/mol, as taught by Turunen because use of this amount would lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko and DIetz as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Turunen (CN 101925704).
Hideko and Dietz describes the addition of amines, but does not describe that the amount used is less than 300 g/mol.
Turunen describes a method for producing paper (title) from cellulose fibers (abstract) that produces a delignification effect (para. 14). The solution includes an amine compound in an amount of 180 g/mol (Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the amine of Hideko and Dietz in an amount of 180 g/mol, as taught by Turunen because use of this amount would lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko and Dietz as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Essaddam (WO 2014/113884).
Hideko and Dietz describe use of amines, but not use of a primary amine, alkanolamine or a tertiary amine.
Essaddam describes a method of processing cellulose biomass (title) used to delignify the biomass (“Field of Invention”, para. 1). The process uses acids, such as sulfonic acid (see “Compound A” with an amine, which can range from primary amines, to secondary amines, to tertiary amines or combined with an alcohol group (see “compound A”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an alkanolamine is an amine with an alcohol group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either a primary amine, a secondary amine, a tertiary amine or an amine combined with an alcohol group, as taught by Essaddam for use with Hideko and Dietz because these are known to lead to expected and predictable lignin dissolution.
Claim(s) 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko and Dietz as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Maeda (JP 2002180391).
Hideko and Dietz teach use of amine, but not one of those listed in Claim 27.
Maeda describes a cellulose pulp processing means (title) that combines a sulfuric acid-containing compound (see A13) with sulfonic acid-group compound (page 3, lines 18-20) and an amine that can be in the form of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine (see page 3, lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ one of either monoethanolamine, diethanolamine or triethanolamine for use as the amine of Hideko and Dietz, as taught by Maeda because these forms of amines are known to be effective for use in cellulose pulp processing and lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 29, 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideko and Dietz as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Eyal (WO 2012/137201).
Hideko and Dietz describe sulfonic acid, but does not describe any of the compounds in Claims 29, 30 and 31.
Eyal teaches a lignocellulose conversion process (title) using an acid treatment (abstract). Acids useable for this treatment includes sulfuric acid, methanesulfonic acid (para. 27). Other additives to include in the mixture includes diethanolamine, triethanolamine (para. 352) and tridodecylamine (para. 465).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ diethanolamine, triethanolamine or tridodecylamine as the amine component of Hideko and Dietz, as taught by Eyal because use of these forms of amines are known to lead to predictable and effective cellulose processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 27, 2026