DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should properly begin with a capital letter. 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 5-9 and 18 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 5 recites a step of adding a water and the first black liquor to a dry mixture. However, the process claims from which said claim 5 depends contain steps wherein the first black liquor is pyrolyzed so as to form the BLBA lignin product. This step would seemingly convert the black liquor to the BLBA, with none recited in the claims as remaining. It is thus unclear which black liquor is being added with the water to the dry mixture, i.e. if there is intended to be some remaining, unconverted liquor that is reserved for this use. Because of this ambiguity, the manner in which mixing and formation of concrete is carried out is unclear, and claim 5 is indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 6-9 are also indefinite under USC 112 as depending from claim 5 and therefore containing the indefinite limitations therein.
Claim 18 recites that the deacetylation product comprises an enzyme hydrolysis solid, however the nature of what this solid entails is unclear. The process claim does not contain any step for enzymatic hydrolysis, and as such it is ambiguous as to whether said enzyme hydrolysis solid is supposed to encompass a material produced as part of the claimed process, or brought in as a separate material. Because the nature of the treated biproduct is unclear, claim 18 is indefinite under USC 112.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenfield et al (US 4013516 A) in view of Roychand et al (Recycling biosolids as cement composites in raw, pyrolyzed and ashed forms: A waste utilisation approach to support circular economy).
Regarding claim 1, Greenfield et al teaches a process for pyrolysis of waste solids concentrates to produce usable residues therefrom. The process comprises heating at a temperature in the range of 700 °F to 1800 °F. The waste product to be treated can be black liquor from the Kraft pulp process (see claim 25), and this constitutes a lignin deacetylation byproduct. The resultant residue comprises char and ash (see claims 12-13 and 18); these constitute lignin products equivalent to the bioash produced by the process of the instant Specification.
Roychand et al teaches a process of recycling biosolids by their use as components in cement composites/concrete. Roychand et al teaches that the biosolids used in the method can include biochar and bioash. This teaching shows that it was known in the art at the time of the instant filing to use ash and char biproducts of the type resultant from the Greenfield et al process as components in concretes. Roychand et al teaches that including such recycled components in concrete serves to reduce the needed amount of cement component and to create a productive use for waste water products that result from other industrial processes. Such a productive use would be seen as an advantageous improvement on the Greenfield et al process by a skilled artisan because a solids waste product (char and ash) is what is resultant from said process. As such, including the steps of using the Greenfield et al ash/char in concrete, as called for by Roychand et al, would be a motivating step. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Greenfield et al teaches a process of producing waste material of the type taught to be used in the Roychand et al process. Each limitation of claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Greenfield et al teaches a process wherein black liquor is treated by heating.
Regarding claim 3, Greenfield et al teaches that the inventive process comprises pyrolyzing in furnace in a temperature range that includes a substantial portion below 600 °C. Routine optimization and experimentation with Greenfield et al would thus lead to a heating process wherein an equivalent range to that of the instant claim is used. The Greenfield et al pyrolyzation process is thus equivalent to that disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to the black liquor bioash product, and the Greenfield et al process would therefore necessarily result in this equivalent product in the ash/char taught therein.
Regarding claim 4, Greenfield et al teaches heating in a furnace, and that the heating is performed at temperature of 700 °F to 1800 °F (371 °C to 982 °C). The temperature of the instant claim falls within this range, and a process wherein this temperature is used would thus be produced through routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Roychand et al teaches that the bioash/biochar is used as an additive by mixing with cement and sand aggregate, and water is added thereto. The Portland cement is a silicate. The resultant wet mixture is cast and thereafter cured to a dry concrete. Roychand et al does not specify the inclusion of a separate binder component to the aforementioned mixture. However, the intent of the Roychand et al document is to provide uses for waste products in the formation of cement composites/concrete. Roychand et al further provides teachings as to other waste products that are used in castables, such as fly ash, slag, and waste glass. Because these teachings are also provided by Roychand et al, and because Roychand et al emphasizes the importance of using such waste materials in concrete compositions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to also include i.e. fly ash or slag as an additional component in the concrete compositions. This would further be accomplished by following the teachings cited in Roychand et al. Doing so would have been understood to be beneficial because Roychand et al teaches that wastes such as those mentioned above are candidates for reuse, in the same way as the bioash/biochar discussed in the document. Thus, given the wide availability of said fly ash/slag/waste glass products, one would have had motivation for their inclusion. Doing so would constitute adding a separate binder component. Each limitation of claim 5 is therefore met by the teachings of Greenfield et al in view of Roychand et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6, Roychand et al teaches a composition comprising sand aggregate.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the teachings of Roychand et al suggest and render obvious a composition further comprising a component that can be flay ash or slag.
Regarding claim 8, Roychand et al teaches that the concrete composition comprises ordinary Portland cement, which comprises calcium silicate compounds.
Regarding claim 9, Roychand et al teaches that the concrete composition comprises waste products. As discussed above, the further teachings in Roychand et al as to other waste products known to be used in concrete compositions would motivate a skilled artisan to also include these materials in a composition, if available, as this would provide a suitable reuse for such waste products. Roychand et al further teaches that waste glass is known as a concrete composition component, and as such one of ordinary skill would, from the Roychand et al teachings, would have had motivation to form a concrete also including a glass silicate. The further limitations of instant claim 9 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, Greenfield et al in view of Roychand et al teaches a process wherein an ash/char biproduct is used as a component in a cement composite by combining said biproduct with a cement.
Regarding claim 20, Roychand et al teaches that the cement component is ordinary Portland cement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein the lignin deacetylation product is black liquor that is pyrolyzed in an inert atmosphere at a temperature less than 600 °C to so as to produce activated lignin carbon.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected. Claims 10-17 are objected to.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW26 June 2026
Prosecution Insights