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 2. Claims 1 – 10 are pending in this application and are examined on the merits herein. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed December 7, 2023, is entered, wherein claims 1 – 3 and 7 are original and claims 4 – 6 and 8 – 10 are amended. Priority 3. This application is a national stage application of PCT/EP2022/065441 , filed June 7, 2022, which claims benefit of foreign priority document SE2150723-1 , filed June 8, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023 and 12/21/2023 were file d in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 6. The title is objected to because it contains “new”, which will not be considered as part of the title of an invention. The word “new” will be deleted when the patent issues. The following title is suggested: A method for Extracting Hemicellulose, Lignin and Carbohydrate from a Lignocellulosic Biomass. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, step 2, “said first 30 fiber residue ” should read “said first fiber residue”. Appropriate correction is required. 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: i . Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. iv. 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 1, 4 – 5, and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallavollita (US2008/0032344A1) . a. Regarding claims 1, 4 – 5, and 8 – 10 , Fallavollita teaches a process for the recovery of holocellulose sugars and a near-native lignin co-product from lignocellulosic biomass. The process can include either single or multiple hydrothermal treatments of the biomass in aqueous solution under pressure at selected pH and temperature conditions to produce a first liquid phase containing mostly hemicellulose sugars, and a first solid stage containing native lignin. The first solid phase can be subjected to an organosolv treatment to produce a second liquid phase containing most of the near-native lignin as dissolved component, and a second solid phase containing mostly cellulose (Abstract). A process is provided for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass into hemicellulose , near-native lignin and cellulose . The process comprises a first stage (“Stage 1”), wherein the lignocellulosic biomass is placed in an aqueous environment to form an aqueous biomass mixture. The aqueous biomass mixture can be subjected to a hydrothermal treatment to produce a first liquid phase containing hemicellulose-derived sugars, and a first solid phase . The first solid phase and the first liquid phase may then be separated . In a second stage (“Stage 2”), the first solid phase can be subjected to an organosolv treatment that produces a second liquid phase containing near-native lignin and a second solid phase containing mostly cellulose. The second liquid phase and the second solid phase may then be separated (para. [0032]). Process parameters in the hydrothermal treatment stage, such as reactor geometry and mixing characteristics, temperature, solid/liquid ratio, pH and reaction time, can be chosen in such a way that the hemicellulose extraction from the lignocellulosic biomass can be maximized in Stage 1, while minimizing native lignin dissolution. The organosolv treatment in Stage 2 is designed to maximize lignin extraction while minimizing its degradation and, at the same time, render the cellulose more amenable to enzymatic attack to produce glucose sugar during Stage 3 of the process (para. [0034]). The pressure of the hydrothermal treatment can be generally well above that of atmospheric pressure and sufficient to maintain a mostly liquid phase with little steam production . The forms of hemicellulose recovered from Stage 1 include monomers, oligomers, and polymers (para. [0035]). During the hydrothermal treatment, the lignocellulosic biomass material can be heated to a temperature within the range of about 60 ⁰C to 220 ⁰C (para. [0051]). The hydrothermal treatment can be carried out for a time period ranging from about 2 minutes to about 24 hours (para. [0053]). In one embodiment, the organosolv treatment comprises a mixture of water and an organic solvent at selected condition parameters that include temperature, time, pressure, solvent-to-water ratio and solids-to-liquids ratio (para. [0060]). The solvent can comprises alcohols, wherein the alcohol can be ethanol (para. [0061]). In another embodiment, the solvent-to-water ratio can be in the range from about 10% (by weight) to anhydrous solvent (para. [0063]). In one embodiment, the temperature used in Stage 2 can be in the range of about 100 ⁰C to about 200 ⁰C (para. [0064]). The time period for the organosolv treatment can be in the range of about 10 minutes to several hours (para. [0066]). The organosolv treatment can be carried out in the presence of a catalyst. Catalysts that may be used include inorganic acid , such as sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid. ( para . [0067]). The process can be performed in separate reactors (para. [0081]). In continuous processing, hydrothermal treatment and organosolv treatment can be performed in a single reactor having two reaction zones, or in separate reactors. Biomass can be fed into the reactor in one direction while the liquor flows in the opposite direction (para. [0082]) In semi-continuous processing, the biomass feedstock can be packed in a column reactor (para. [0083]). The biomass feedstock can be mixed with a sufficient amount of liquor , which can contain water or a mixture of water and an organic solvent , corresponding respectively to the hydrothermal treatment or organosolv treatment being carried out. Upon complete, liquid-solid phase separation can be carried out to recover hemicellulose, lignin and cellulose (para. [0081]). The second liquid phase produced from organosolv treatment comprising lignin and some dissolved sugars . The solvents added in the organosolv treatment may be recovered and/or recycled back for use in the organosolv treatment using any suitable technique known to those skilled in the art (para. [0075]) . Liquor can be preheated prior to being pumped into the reactor for both treatments (para. [0083]). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reaction parameters in two stages process, including hydrothermal treatment and organosolv treatment, as taught by Fallavollita to arrive at the claimed invention because Fallavollita teaches that process parameters such as temperature, pressure, time, and solvent composition may be selected and adjusted to maximize hemicellulose extraction in the first stage and lignin extraction in the second stage. One would have been motivated to modify the reaction parameters in two stages process, including hydrothermal treatment and organosolv treatment, as taught by Fallavollita because Fallavollita explicitly teaches that these parameters may be adjusted for maximum extraction of hemicellulose and lignin. Regarding the “subcritical water” limitation, Fallavollita teaches that the hydrothermal treatment is carried out at pressure well above atmospheric pressure and sufficient to maintain a mostly liquid phase with little steam production. The disclosure reads on the use of liquid water under subcritical conditions in the first stage. Based on the same disclosure, it would have been obvious to employ a pressure within the claimed range as an operating pressure for maintaining the aqueous phase under the selected treatment temperatures because pressure is a result-effective variable in the hydrothermal treatment. For the claimed pressure used in step 2, it would have been obvious to operate the organosolv treatment at a pressure within the claimed range as a routine process condition to maintain the select solvent system in the desired phase at the selected treatment temperatures because Fallavollita teaches that pressure is a reaction parameter that may be adjusted. For all the reaction parameters, one would have performed a routine experimentation to discover the best reaction parameters for optimal extraction of hemicellulose and lignin. Regarding “the volume of the first solvent” and “ the volume of the second solvent”, Fallavollita teaches conducting both the hydrothermal treatment and the organosolv treatment under selected process parameters, including temperature, pressure, solvent composition, and solids-to-liquids ratio. Fallavollita teaches that the amount of solvent added to the reactor is an operating parameter, in combination with temperature and reactor conditions, that determines the pressure within the reactor. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the amount of first and second solvent added to the reactor such that the reactor pressure reaches a value within the claimed range upon heating because solvent amounts and operating conditions are result-effective variables that would have been adjusted through routine optimization to maintain the desired reaction conditions. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the reaction parameters in two stages process, including hydrothermal treatment and organosolv treatment, as taught by Fallavollita to arrive at the claimed invention because Fallavollita teaches that process parameters are routinely selected and adjusted to achieve maximum extraction of products. Claim s 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallavollita (US2008/0032344A1) as applied to claim s 1, 4 – 5, and 8 – 10 above, and further in view of Neil et al. (US10557104B2) and Tunc et al. (US2015/0136345A1) . b. Regarding claims 2 – 3 , Fallavollita teaches the limitations discussed above. However, Fallavollita does not teach the step to recover the solvents by applying pressurized gas and by rinsing water. Neil et al. teach an automated system for solvent extraction of a feed stock to produce a botanical extract (Abstract). The process for producing a botanical extract from a plant-based raw material, biomass, or other feed stock material comprises conveying the solid material and a heated inert non-condensable gas into a second-stage purge chamber , operated to recover residual solvent contained in the solid material (Col. 3, lines 28 – 31; lines 46 – 49) . Tunc et al. teach a process for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass (Abstract) , wherein the process comprises digesting a lignocellulosic biomass feedstock under effective conditions in the presence of a solvent for lignin, an acid or acid precursor, and water, to produce cellulose-rich solids in a digestor liquor (para. [0019 – 0020]), wherein the solvent for lignin may be ethanol , and the wash solvent for lignin may be the same (para. [0025]) . The recovered solids normally will contain a qua ntify of lignin and sugars, some of which can be removed easily by washing. The washing-liquid composition can be the same as or different than the liquor composition used during fractionation. Multiple washes may be performed to increase effectiveness. Preferably, on e or more washes are performed with a composition including a solvent for lignin , to remove additional lignin from the solids, followed by one or more washes with water to displace residual solvent (para. [0116]) . It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio n to combine the process for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass into hemicellulose, near-native lignin and cellulose as taught by Fallavollita with the process for botanical extraction from biomass comprising recovering residual solvent by applying pressurized gas and a process of fractionating lignocellulosic biomass comprising recovering residual solvent by rinsing in view of Neil et al. and Tunc et al. because Neil et al. teach recovering residual solvent contained in solid material by conveying the solid material together with a heated inert non-condensable gas into a purge chamber and Tunc et al. teach washing the solids with water or a solvent for lignin, wherein the solvent for lignin is ethanol. Neil et al. teach conveying solid material together with a heated inert non-condensable gas into a purge chamber operated to recover residual solvent, thereby teaching the recovery of residual solvent is by application of pressurized gas . Tunc et al. teach washing recovered solids with a solvent for lignin, wherein the solvent for lignin is ethanol and that the wash solvent may be the same, thereby suggesting rinsing the solids with ethanol to remove solvent retained in the solids and to recover the solvent. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the process for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass into hemicellulose, near-native lignin and cellulose as taught by Fallavollita with the process for botanical extraction from biomass comprising recovering residual solvent by applying pressurized gas and a process of fractionating lignocellulosic biomass comprising recovering residual solvent by rinsing in view of Neil et al. and Tunc et al. because Neil et al. and Tunc et al. teach known solvent-recovery techniques for removing solvent retained in solid material and it is known in the art to recover the solvent to improve efficiency and reduce solvent loss. Claims 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallavollita (US2008/0032344A1) as applied to claim s 1, 4 – 5, and 8 – 10 above, and further in view of Klein et al. (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2010, Vol. 58, Issue 18, page 10045 – 10048, Reference included with PTO-892). c. Regarding claims 6 – 7, Fallavollita teaches the limitations discussed above. However, Fallavollita does not teach the method for extraction, wherein step 2c) – 2d) comprises a plurality of static cycles, wherein each static cycle comprises maintaining said first fiber residue and said second solvent in said second container at a temperature of 110 – 170 ⁰C for a time period of from 1 to 20 minutes and introduce a volume X of new second solvent to said second container and simultaneously discharging the same volume X of the second solvent with at least part of the extracted lignin from the second container. Fallavollita also does not teach the volume X of new second solvent introduced and discharged during at least one static cycle is 10 – 30 % (v/v) of the volume Z of the second solvent provided in step 2a). Klein et al. teach accelerated solvent extraction of lignin using ethanol-water with the yields increase from about 14% to 33% as temperature increases (Abstract). The extraction with 60% (v/v) ethanol-water take place at 100 , 150 , or 195 ⁰C using a flush percentage of 70, 100, or 130%, using three static cycles of 5 minutes each while pressure is maintained between 1500 – 1700 psi (page 10046, Left Col., para. 3). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass into hemicellulose, near-native lignin and cellulose as taught by Fallavollita with the lignin extraction using accelerated solvent extraction method in view of Klein et al. because both references teach the extraction of lignin and Klein et al. teach performing lignin extraction using an accelerated solvent extraction technique comprising a plurality of static cycles with solvent being flushed in the reactor. One would have been motivated to combine the process for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass into hemicellulose, near-native lignin and cellulose as taught by Fallavollita with the lignin extraction using accelerated solvent extraction method in view of Klein et al. because Klein et al. teach that accelerated solvent extraction improves lignin yield . Klein et al. further teach using different flush percentage of 70, 100, or 130%, thereby demonstrating the amount of solvent being introduced and discharged during each static cycle. For the amount of solvent being discharged during one static cycle, one would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best amount for optimal lignin extraction. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the process for fractionating lignocellulosic biomass into hemicellulose, near-native lignin and cellulose as taught by Fallavollita with the lignin extraction using accelerated solvent extraction method in view of Klein et al. because both references teach similar solvent-based lignin extraction processes under controlled temperature and pressure conditions, thereby the combination will yield predictable results. Conclusion No claim is found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-0265 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT SCARLETT GOON can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5241 . 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. /H.Y.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1693 /SCARLETT Y GOON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1693