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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 02/05/2026 is duly acknowledged.
Claims 8, 12, 19, 20 and 25-34 were previously canceled by applicant’s amendments dated 11/27/2023.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18 and 21-24 as amended/presented on 11/27/2023 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18, 21 and 22; directed to “A process for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel…”) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 (see REM, p. 2) is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 23 and 24 (drawn to non-elected invention of Group II, without traverse) have been withdrawn from further considerations.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18, 21 and 22 (elected invention of Group I; directed to “A process for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel…”) have been examined on their merits in this action hereinafter.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CA2022/050794 (filed on 05/19/2022), which claims domestic benefit from a US provisional application 63/202,159 filed on 05/28/2021.
NOTE: 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 (as amended/presented) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (Zhao Li-Xin et al, herein Zhao et al, 2014; CN 103740767 A; FOR cited by applicants in IDS dated 01/19/2024, along with English translation).
Independent claims 1 and 22 have been reproduced as follows:
Claim 1 is directed to “A process for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel, the process comprising:
loading bales of cellulosic biomass into an enclosure;
at least partially filling the enclosure with an aqueous liquid, wherein the aqueous liquid is filled to a level selected to at least partially submerge the bales of cellulosic biomass once loaded into the enclosure;
providing anaerobic conditions within the enclosure;
subjecting the bales loaded within the enclosure to an anaerobic digestion to produce biogas, the biogas comprising methane, the anaerobic digestion producing digestate; and,
collecting at least a portion of the biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion of the bales of cellulosic biomass.”
Claim 22 is directed to “A process for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel, the process comprising:
loading straw bales into an enclosure, the loading comprising stacking the straw bales, each of the straw bales having a density between 80 to 250 kg/m3;
adding aqueous liquid to the enclosure such that the straw bales within the enclosure are in contact with the aqueous liquid, the aqueous liquid added to a level such that substantially all non-floating straw bales are submerged;
introducing inoculum into at least one of the straw bales, the aqueous liquid, or the enclosure;
sealing the enclosure;
subjecting the bales within the sealed enclosure to an anaerobic digestion to produce biogas, the anaerobic digestion conducted for at least 25 days; and,
collecting at least a portion of the biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion of the straw bales.”
See also limitations of the dependent claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, as currently presented.
Zhao et al (CN103740767A; all citations per English translation of record), while teaching a pre-treatment method (see Title, Abstract and Claims 1-8, for instance) capable of improving the anaerobic digestion rate of cellulosic biomass comprising straw for biogas production (regarding instant claims 1 and 22), disclose a process that comprises the bundling the corn straw (an agricultural residue/product containing cellulosic biomass) into straw bales using mechanical straw baler (see Summary of the invention, step 3; Example 1), wherein the density of each straw bundle is about 130-140 kg/m³ (Zhao et al also disclose the fact that “baling density” has been known to affect the pH of the raw material, lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid, thereby affecting the quality of the raw materials”; see Summary of the invention); providing an enclosure for anaerobic conditions for stored straw bales using an agricultural, polyethylene stretch wrap film in the form of an enclosure that is sealed for collecting the biogas generated after anaerobic digestion (see Examples 1-2, claim 6, for instance); inoculating the baled straw with inoculating silt/sludge at a ratio of 1:10, i.e. submerged in a fluid, in an anaerobic digestion reactor, wherein the anaerobic digestion is carried out after said inoculation at 38 to 40 degree C (where the temperature is maintained using a constant temperature water bath; see Example 1, claim 7, for instance) for 15-20 days to produce biogas (see sections "Summary of the invention", Examples 1-2 and claims); and wherein biogas production was measured every day, and wherein said method resulted in a cumulative biogas production that increased from 36.3 mL/g to 302 mL/g, and increase of more than 8 times, and the gas production rate of biogas increased from 3.0 mL/g/d to 23.2 mL/g/d, an increase of 7.7 times, and wherein the straw bundling/baling method has the added advantages of saving energy and reducing the area occupied by the biogas production project, along with associated positive environmental benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emission, etc. (see Summary of the invention, for instance).
Although, Zhao et al do not explicitly state and/or disclose the step of “filling the enclosure with an aqueous liquid, wherein the aqueous liquid is filled to a level selected to at least partially submerge the bales” of cellulosic biomass once loaded into the enclosure per se; and wherein the anaerobic digestion conducted “for at least 25 days” (see instant claims 1 and 22), given the disclosure for the anaerobic digestion reactors having 2 L volume in Example 1 used for digestion and production of biogas on experimental basis, and the fact that they do demonstrate beneficial effects of bundling straw biomass that is digested for 15 to 20 days with several advantages associated with such process, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated and have had a reasonable expectation of success in upscaling, adjusting and/or optimizing the volume of the enclosure, and length of digestion period (depending on required parameters such as the volume of the enclosure, conditions of the baled straw, its moisture content, and amount of baled straw enclosed and/or used for the production of biogas) performed under anaerobic conditions, in order to enhance the production of biogas per unit weight of the straw, i.e. the cellulosic biomass. Since, they already demonstrated significant increase in biogas production (up to rate of biogas production by 7.7 times; see Examples 1-2, for instance) from the straw biomass using the baled method as discussed above, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of liquid aqueous added to straw (such as by inoculating the baled straw with inoculating silt/sludge at a ratio of 1:10) for anaerobic digestion in the enclosure depending on the amount/density of the stacked bales (such as in the form of sludge/silt inoculum, for instance), and the duration of the incubation for improvement in the production of biogas, as already taught and/or suggested by the disclosure of Zhao et al as discussed above, albeit using an integrated two-phase anaerobic digestion process.
Regarding instant claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 16, Zhao et al disclose the method step wherein corn straw bales are loaded/bundled within the flexible plastic film enclosure at a bundle density between 130 to 140 kg/m3, before the addition of inoculating sludge fluid for digestion (may be taken as a batch process; of the cellulosic straw biomass; see Examples 1-2, claim 5, for instance). Since, Zhao et al also disclose the fact that during the anaerobic digestion of the straw biomass, the biogas production was measured every day (see Examples 1-2), an artisan in the biogas production art would have known and would have been able to modify the process such that the anaerobic digestion of the straw biomass comprises a continuous digestion process, wherein the production of the end product in the form of biogas can be sampled, and measured on a daily basis, as already demonstrated and/or taught by Zhao et al.
The limitations of instant claim 4 (comprising “injecting water, an aqueous solution, inoculum, or any combination thereof, into a plurality of the bales of cellulosic material”) and claim 5 (wherein the “enclosure is configured to hold at least about 25,000 m3 of liquid”) would have been obvious to an artisan in the biogas production technology art, as Zhao et al already contemplates the fact that current traditional biogas fermenter scales are not large enough, and would be desirable to scaleup in large-scale sustainable project (see entire section, “Background technique”, last 2 paragraphs)for biogas production, and therefore an artisan in the art would have fully contemplated such modifications for the scale of enclosure in order to scale up the amount of bales used and/or required for the enhanced production of biogas using anaerobic digestion within the enclosure.
The limitations of instant claim 9 (wherein “the bales of cellulosic biomass have a nominal volume of at least 50L”) would have also been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art because Zhao et al disclose the fact that bales/bundled biomass of straw that has been compacted and bundled by a special straw baler weighs 12 Kg, and has a size of 56cm x 41cm x 33cm (length x width x height), i.e. would have a “nominal volume” of 76 L (see Zhao et al, Example 1).
The limitations of instant claim 17 (wherein “an average residence time of the bales of cellulosic biomass is greater than 30 days”) would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art because Zhao et al already demonstrate beneficial effects of bundling straw biomass that is digested for 15 to 20 days and with several disclosed advantages associated with such process, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated and have had a reasonable expectation of success in upscaling, adjusting and/or optimizing length of digestion period (depending on required parameters such as the volume of the enclosure, conditions of the baled straw, moisture contents, and/or amount of baled straw enclosed or used for the production of biogas) performed under anaerobic conditions, in order to enhance the production of biogas per unit weight of the straw.
The limitations of instant claim 21 (wherein “the anaerobic digestion is conducted at a solids consistency not more than 15%”) would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the biogas production art as Zhao et al employ the same type of cellulosic biomass in the form of compacted corn straw bundled in order to provide 76L nominal volume (i.e. nominal volume of “at least 50L”; see instant claim 9) with the weight of 12 Kg (see Zhao et al, Example 1), which would be deemed to intrinsically provide similar consistency depending on the amount of water or “aqueous liquid” employed during the anaerobic digestion (it is to be noted that instant claims 1 and 22 do not recite the specific type of the cellulosic biomass, and the type and the amount of “aqueous liquid” used for the step of anaerobic digestion per se), and therefore such adjustments or modifications in the “solids consistency” of the straw bales employed in the step of anaerobic digestion would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, unless evidence/data provided on record to the contrary (which is currently lacking on record). It is to be noted that instant disclosure of record provides following guidance for the term “solids Consistency” (see instant specification, paragraphs [0061], and [0093]):
PNG
media_image1.png
439
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, in the absence of such recitations of specific type of cellulosic biomass used for the anaerobic digestion of, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the process disclosed by Zhao et al such that it comprises essentially the same or at least similar “solids consistency” for the cellulosic straw employed (specifically as bundled/baled straw) for the enhanced production of biogas, as require by the instantly claimed process.
Therefore, the invention as claimed fails to distinguish itself over the detailed teachings and/or suggestions from the cited prior art of Zhao et al, as discussed above.
Claims 11, 14, 15 and 18 (as currently presented) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (2014; CN 103740767 A; FOR cited by applicants in IDS dated 01/19/2024, along with English translation) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of Tanigawa (2017; NPL cited as ref. [U] on PTO 892 form) and Xia (2017; CN 107473549 A; FOR cited as ref. [V]; attached as an English machine translation).
Claim 11, 14, 15 and 18 have been reproduced below:
“11.(Original) The process according to claim 10, comprising removing the digestate from the enclosure after the biogas has been collected, said removing comprising driving a vehicle into the enclosure, the vehicle configured to transfer at least a portion of the digestate out of the enclosure.”
“14. (Currently Amended) The process according to claim l upgrading the collected biogas.”
“15. (Original) The process according to any of claim 1, wherein the collected biogas comprises carbon dioxide, and wherein the process comprises capturing at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and providing the captured carbon dioxide for storage.”
“18. (Currently Amended) The process according to claim 1 renewable natural gas, renewable hydrogen associated with the renewable gas, a fuel associated with the renewable gas, or a fuel associated with the renewable hydrogen.”
The detailed teachings and/or suggestions from the cited prior art of Zhao et al as they pertain to the invention of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 have been discussed above, and are further relied upon in the same manner hereinafter.
However, the process for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel, as specifically recited in instant claims 11, 14, 15 and 18 have not been explicitly disclosed by the cited prior art reference of Zhao et al, as discussed above.
Tanigawa (2017), while reviewing biogas as converting waste materials into a form of energy (see Title and Introduction), disclose the fact that biogas (that normally contains about 50-70 percent methane, 30-40 percent carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases) produced from the anaerobic digestion of various kinds of waste materials, including crop residues (see schematic Figure 1), after its produced and/or captured, can also be upgraded into biomethane, also called renewable natural gas or RNG, and can be injected into natural gas pipelines or used as a vehicle fuel (see Introduction, 2nd to last paragraph, for instance); wherein RNG or biomethane is biogas that has been refined to remove carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other trace gases so that it meets natural gas industry standards (see section “Renewable Natural Gas”, for instance); and wherein some of the biogas can also be upgraded in compressed form to CNG, or in liquified form to LNG (see section “Compressed Natural Gas and Liquified Natural gas”, for instance). Tanigawa also discloses the fact that after anaerobic digestion, the liquid and solid digested material, normally known as digestate (Is the nutrient-rich solid or liquid material remaining after the digestion process, contains all the recycled nutrients that were present in the original organic material but in a form more readily available for plants and soil building) can be frequently used as a soil amendment and/or sold as a fertilizer (see Introduction, 2nd paragraph), reducing the need for chemical fertilizers, and can provide addition revenue when sold as livestock bedding (see section “The Benefits of Biogas”, and section “Raw Biogas and Digestate”, for instance), or composted with minimal processing.
Thus, to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to remove the digestate after anaerobic digestion of straw biomass (albeit using suitable transportation means) for various cost-effective and beneficial downstream applications already known in the art, including as soil amendments, fertilizers, or animal bedding, etc. (as disclosed by Tanigawa, above), and upgrading the biogas produced into value added products in the form of renewable natural gas such as RNG, CNG, LNG, etc., that are processes already known and/or being used in the biogas application art as disclosed by Tanigawa, as discussed above.
Although Tanigawa does not disclose the method step (as recited instant claim 15), wherein the process comprises “capturing at least a portion of the carbon dioxide and providing the captured carbon dioxide for storage”, such would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the biogas production art because Xia (2017; all citations per English machine translation provided) already discloses the fact that such biogas fractionation/purification systems and methods that fractionate/separate methane and carbon dioxide and store the separated carbon dioxide (CO2) for various downstream applications (such as for making fertilizers) were known in the art, and can be assembled as part of an agricultural waste recycling system (see Xia, Abstract, section “Invention Content”); wherein the gas-separating-purifying unit can separate methane and CO2 from the biogas and can be separately stored for various downstream applications (see Example 1, for instance). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such gas separation/fractionation units into the process as taught by Zhao et al, that can further comprise the means and/or units to separate and individually store purified methane and CO2 gases for various beneficial downstream applications as already disclosed by both Tanigawa and Xia, as discussed above.
Thus, the claim as whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as currently claimed.
As per MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Conclusion
NO claims are currently allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATYENDRA K. SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-8790. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00- 5:00.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/SATYENDRA K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657