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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
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(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0201873) in view of Samec et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0152278).
Regarding claim 1, Crocker et al. teaches present invention also contemplates a system for alcohol oxidation reaction on lignin comprising a lignin-containing biomass in contact with the catalyst which meets the preamble method for the catalyzed decomposition of lignin (paragraph 12). Crocker et al. teaches method can comprise the step of contacting a lignin-containing biomass substrate with the catalyst of the invention in a reactor vessel a the method may further include a hydrolysis step with an aqueous acid or a base following oxidation of the lignin-biomass and the method may further feature a solvent in the reactor vessel which meets the limitation providing a reaction mixture A comprising lignin, a catalyst and a solvent (paragraph 13 and 14). Crocker et al. teaches method can be carried out in a temperature range of between 20 and 250° C which meets the limitation of heating the reaction mixture A so as to obtain a mixture B comprising a product mix, the catalyst and the solvent (paragraph 13). Crocker et al. teaches the LDH may be comprised of metals such as platinum and nickel which meets the limitation of a basic carrier material, platinum and nickel. Crocker et al. does not teach the weight percentage for platinum and nickel.
Samec et al. teaches a method of depolymerizing lignin from biomass using a transition metal catalyst (paragraph 1). Samec et al. teaches a method of preparing the composition by depolymerizing lignin comprising providing biomass in particulate form, the biomass containing lignin, a solvent mixture comprising an organic solvent and water, and a transition metal catalyst which meets the limitation of method for the catalyzed decomposition of lignin, comprising providing a reaction mixture A comprising lignin, a catalyst and a solvent (paragraph 15). Samec et al. teaches heating the mixture to at least 80° C which meets the limitation of heating the reaction mixture A so as to obtain a mixture B comprising a product mix, the catalyst and the solvent (paragraph 15). Samec et al. teaches the catalyst is a platinum doped with nickel and teaches the amount of catalyst is 0.5 mol % or more which meets the limitation of platinum at a weight percentage of 1 - 10 wt.% and- nickel at a weight percentage of 0 - 5 wt.% (paragraph 57). Samec et al. teaches treating the biomass, for example wood chips or sawdust, in an organic solvent in the presence of a transition metal catalyst at an elevated temperature the present inventors found that the obtained depolymerized lignin had a molecular weight of less than 900 g/mol while the control method lacking the catalyst resulted in lignin having a molecular weight of 6000 g/mol (paragraphs 46-50). Samec et al. teaches the present invention may easily be integrated into a pulping process involving an organosolv process leaving not only depolymerized lignin but also high quality cellulose and hemi cellulose (paragraph 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use catalyst platinum doped with nickel and teaches the amount of catalyst is 0.5 mol % or more for the method of catalyzed decomposition of lignin taught by Crocker et al. because the catalyst efficiently depolymerizes lignin.
Regarding claim 2, Samec et al. teaches organosolv, pyrolysis oils or hydrogenated lignin etc. (paragraph 7 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use organosolv, pyrolysis oils or hydrogenated lignin etc. or more for the method of catalyzed decomposition of lignin taught by Crocker et al. because the catalyst efficiently depolymerizes lignin.
Regarding claim 3, Crocker et al. teaches a solvent mixture comprising an organic solvent such as alcohol and water (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 4, Samec et al. teaches catalyst is present in the reaction mixture A in an amount of less than 30 wt.%o based on the total amount of catalyst and lignin (paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 5, Crocker et al. teaches method can be carried out in a temperature range of between 20 and 250° C which meets the limitation wherein the reaction mixture A is heated to a reaction temperature of below 400 °C (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 6, Crocker et al. teaches catalyst can be in contact with the substrate for a period of time from 1 minute to 72 hours which meets the limitation of wherein the reaction temperature in method step b) is maintained over a period of less than 240 min (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 7, Crocker et al. teaches waste generated by different industries that use plant matter which encompasses wherein the product mix contains less than 30 wt.%o of a coke fraction (paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 8- 10, Crocker et al. teaches the product mix comprises at least one monomeric product containing a phenolic building block and wherein the product mix comprises at least one oligomeric product of which the monomer building blocks contain a phenolic building block and wherein at least 50 wt.% of the lignin used in the reaction mixture A is converted into monomeric and oligomeric products (paragraphs 16-19; Figures 1-4).
Regarding claims 11-13, Crocker et al. teaches a layered double hydroxide (LDH) structures with tunable ion structures comprising two or more metals, selected from first row transition metals (V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu and Zn), as well as main group metals such as Li, Mg, Al, and Ga (paragraph 23 and 24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights