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 02/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 42-61 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.
Regarding claims 42 and 57, the phrase “possibly” in line 8 of claim 42 and line 12 of claim 57 has been interpreted as "for example" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remaining dependent claims 43-56 and 58-61 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 41.
Regarding claim 54, the phrase "for example" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 42-48, 50, 51, 55-57 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fechter et al. (US 2023/0002584-corresponding to WO2021/112749 of record).
With respect to claim 42, Fechter teaches a process for the production of a wood fiberboard (“process for recycling lignocellulosic fibers from a fiberboard”, Pa [0010]),
wherein the process comprises the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam (“steaming the fiberboard pieces”, Pa [0010]; “In steaming the pieces, they are subject to steam at pressure above atmospheric pressure (i.e. the absolute pressure exceeds 1 bar) and at a temperature higher than 100° C. (i.e. above the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure)… the steaming hydrates the lignocellulosic fibers”, Pa [0012]);
wherein the process comprises the step in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time (“the residence time in the steaming step”, Pa [0023]), followed by the step of reducing the pressure of this material (“releasing the overpressure once the fiberboard pieces has been steamed”, Pa [0016]);
wherein, after this pressure reduction, the material is transformed into recycled wood fibers (“Once the overpressure has been released, excess water vapor is removed, whereby providing portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers.”, Pa [0017]);
wherein this process comprises the step of supplying the recycled wood fibers as feedstock in a production line for producing wood fiberboard (“The lignocellulosic fibers are re-cycled to allow for the manufacture of new fiberboards.”, Pa [0028]).
Fechter does not explicitly teach reducing the pressure of this material by at least 3 bar, but further teaches that it was sufficient to steam the fiberboard pieces at pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar absolute pressure, and most of the steam will evaporate once the pressure is released subsequent to the steaming (Pa [0016]). Thus, one would have been obvious to select the optimum pressure in pressure reduction by routine experimentation in order to evaporate most of steam after steaming at pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar absolute pressure, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 43, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; this material is brought to a pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar (“it was sufficient to steam the fiberboard pieces at pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar absolute pressure”, Pa [0016]). Even if Fechter does not explicitly teach the claimed range of the pressure during steaming, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 44, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that liquid water is continuously or periodically discharged during the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; and/or during the step in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time (“In steaming the fiberboard pieces, they may thus be present on a distance element (e.g. a net-basket or a permeable conveyor belt) keeping the fiberboard pieces, as well as the resulting portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers, separate from any condense water, but still providing the steam with access to the fiberboard pieces.”, Pa [0019]).
With respect to claim 45, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that after the step of reducing the pressure, the recycled wood fibers have a moisture content of between 15 and 30 percent by weight (“The moisture content in the portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers may be 15 to 30%.”, Pa [0018]). Even if Fechter does not explicitly teach the claimed range of the moisture content, in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 46, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the residence time is linked to the temperature in the steaming step. A somewhat higher temperature implies that the residence time may be shorter (Pa [0024]), but does not explicitly teach that the duration of the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam is at most 20 seconds. One would have been obvious to select the optimum residence time depending on the temperature in the steaming step by routine experimentation for the purpose of steaming the fiberboard pieces to decompress and release the lignocellulosic fibers by hydrating them, as well as hydrolyzing the binding agent, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 47, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that once the overpressure has been released, excess water vapor is removed, whereby providing portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers with low the moisture content (Pa [0017]), and the moisture content in the portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers may be 15 to 30% (Pa [0018]), but does not explicitly teach that the step of reducing the pressure of the material is carried out in a time span of less than 1 minute. One would have been obvious to select the optimum time span in pressure reduction by routine experimentation for the purpose of providing portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers with low the moisture content, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 48, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that in the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam, the refined material is heated to a temperature lower than 240° C (“it was sufficient to steam the fiberboard pieces … at a temperature of 103° C. to 180° C.”, Pa [0016]).
With respect to claim 50, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the steps in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; and/or in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time, and/or in which the pressure of the material is reduced, are carried out in batch (“The fiberboard pieces 110 are fed via a bunker to a steaming vessel.”, Pa [0041]).
With respect to claim 51, Fechter as applied to claim 50 above further teaches that this batch process is carried out in a receptacle, wherein liquid water is continuously or periodically discharged from this receptacle (“In the steaming vessel, the fiberboard pieces 110 are positioned on a distance element to keep them separate from condense water and steamed 111 by pressurizing the steaming vessel with steam.”, Pa [0042]).
With respect to claim 55, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that recycled lignocellulosic fibers 130 may be mixed 131 with a binding agent 135 (e.g. a urea-formaldehyde resin) and dried, and the mixture 140 is fed to continuous forming stations, forming a homogenous layer 150 of the mixture 140 onto a feeding belt. The feeding belt transports the layer 150 into a continuous hotpress, compressing 151 and plastifing the layer 150, and at the same time activating the binding agent 135. After the hot press, the resulting an endless fiberboard 160 is cut, sanded, and confectioned in order to be delivered to a furniture-making factory (Pa [0046]-[0048]). Therefore, one would have found it obvious to select the optimum amount of binding agent by routine experimentation in order to produce the desired fiberboard.
With respect to claim 56, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that the recycled wood fibers are treated with adhesive, chosen from the list of: urea-formaldehyde adhesive, melamine-urea-formaldehyde adhesive (“recycled lignocellulosic fibers 130 may be mixed 131 with a binding agent 135 (e.g. a urea-formaldehyde resin)”, Pa [0046]).
With respect to claim 57, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above teaches that the following steps are carried out in-line:
optionally the step of mechanically breaking down recycled wood fiberboards to obtain refined material from recycled wood fiberboards, to form refined material having an average size according to numbers of less than 10 cubic centimeters (“The fiberboards 100 may be disintegrated 101 into fiberboard pieces 110 by shredding and/or hammer milling. Typically, the resulting fiberboard pieces 110 are approximatively 5×5 cm.”, Pa [0040]);
the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam (“steaming the fiberboard pieces”, Pa [0010]; “In steaming the pieces, they are subject to steam at pressure above atmospheric pressure (i.e. the absolute pressure exceeds 1 bar) and at a temperature higher than 100° C. (i.e. above the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure)… the steaming hydrates the lignocellulosic fibers”, Pa [0012]);
the step in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time, followed by the step of reducing the pressure of this material (“the residence time in the steaming step”, Pa [0023]), followed by the step of reducing the pressure of this material (“releasing the overpressure once the fiberboard pieces has been steamed”, Pa [0016]);
the pressure reduction, after which the material is transformed into recycled wood fibers (“Once the overpressure has been released, excess water vapor is removed, whereby providing portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers.”, Pa [0017]);
the step of supplying the recycled wood fibers in a production line in a dry production process for producing wood fiberboard (“The lignocellulosic fibers are re-cycled to allow for the manufacture of new fiberboards.”, Pa [0028]-[0031]).
Fechter does not explicitly teach reducing the pressure of this material by at least 3 bar, but further teaches that it was sufficient to steam the fiberboard pieces at pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar absolute pressure, and most of the steam will evaporate once the pressure is released subsequent to the steaming (Pa [0016]). Thus, one would have been obvious to select the optimum pressure in pressure reduction by routine experimentation in order to evaporate most of steam after steaming at pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar absolute pressure, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 61, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above further teaches that once the overpressure has been released, excess water vapor is removed, whereby providing portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers with low the moisture content (Pa [0017]), and the moisture content in the portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers may be 15 to 30% (Pa [0018]), but does not explicitly teach that in the step of reducing the pressure, the ratio of the pressure drop to the duration of the reduction of the pressure is greater than 0.25 bar/second. One would have been obvious to select the optimum duration of the reduction of the pressure by routine experimentation for the purpose of providing portions comprising released lignocellulosic fibers with low the moisture content, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 49, 52-54 and 58-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fechter et al. (US 2023/0002584-corresponding to WO2021/112749 of record) as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Lamber et al. (US 2023/0220620).
With respect to claim 49, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above teaches that in the step in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam, the heating is achieved using steam in the process equipment which comprises the refined material from recycled wood fiberboards (“In the steaming vessel, the fiberboard pieces 110 are positioned on a distance element to keep them separate from condense water and steamed 111 by pressurizing the steaming vessel with steam.”, Pa [0042]) and further teaches that after the steaming, the lignocellulosic fibers are released from each other, but they are present as fluffy and resilient, pillow like portions comprising lignocellulosic fibers, the lignocellulosic fibers are however still loosely attached to each other (Pa [0020]), but does not explicitly teach that the heating is achieved using steam by means of steam injection in the process equipment which comprises or conveys the refined material from recycled wood fiberboards.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for defibrating a lignocellulosic material in a steam explosion process, Lamber teaches that there is always a supply of lignocellulosic material M that can be continuously fed into the reactor 8 during operation of the defibrator system 100 (Pa [0040]), inside the reactor 8, the lignocellulosic material M is heated to an elevated temperature by means of the steam S, as it passes through the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M undergoes hydrolysis in order to separate substances contained in the lignocellulosic material M from each other (Pa [0044]), inside the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M is treated at a first pressure P1 that is kept constant throughout the reactor 8, and at the opening 11 the lignocellulosic material M is discharged into the vessel 13, or into a conduit 12 that is in fluid communication with the vessel 13, that is held at a second pressure P2 that is significantly lower than the first pressure P1, due to a sharp pressure drop from the first pressure P1 to the second pressure P2 at the opening 11, the lignocellulosic material M that passes through the opening 11 is suddenly expanded and undergoes a steam explosion that disintegrates fibers of the lignocellulosic material M, and it is advantageous to maintain the second pressure P2 at a constant level so that the pressure drop is also kept constant, since this allows for creating a uniform pulp from the lignocellulosic material M where the fibers have all undergone steam explosion and been disintegrated to smaller particles in a uniform way (Pa [0048]). Lamber further teaches that by continuously supplying lignocellulosic material M through the reactor inlet 81 and continuously discharging hydrolyzed lignocellulosic material M through the reactor outlet 83 a continuous operation of the reactor 8 is achieved, this is particularly advantageous in limiting the amount of steam S that is required at any given time for heating the lignocellulosic material M and increasing pressure in the reactor 8, so that a steam generator used for producing the steam can be kept at a significantly lower capacity than would be the case in a discontinuous operation of the reactor 8 (Pa [0050]) and a steam inlet 82 is also provided to allow for a supply of steam S to enter the reactor 8, preferably through a first steam valve 33 (Pa [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Fechter with the teachings of Lamber and substitute Lamber’s defibrator system for Fechter’s steaming vessel for the purpose of defibrating re-cycling lignocellulosic fibers in a steam explosion process with a lower production cost and high-quality fibers.
With respect to claim 52, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above teaches that in the steaming vessel, the fiberboard pieces 110 are positioned on a distance element to keep them separate from condense water and steamed 111 by pressurizing the steaming vessel with steam (Pa [0042]) and further teaches that after the steaming, the lignocellulosic fibers are released from each other, but they are present as fluffy and resilient, pillow like portions comprising lignocellulosic fibers, the lignocellulosic fibers are however still loosely attached to each other (Pa [0020]), but does not explicitly teach that the steps in which refined material from recycled wood fiberboards is wetted, heated and pressurized using steam; and/or in which this material is kept under pressure and temperature for a certain amount of time, and/or in which the pressure of the material is reduced; are carried out in a continuous process.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for defibrating a lignocellulosic material in a steam explosion process, Lamber teaches that there is always a supply of lignocellulosic material M that can be continuously fed into the reactor 8 during operation of the defibrator system 100 (Pa [0040]), inside the reactor 8, the lignocellulosic material M is heated to an elevated temperature by means of the steam S, as it passes through the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M undergoes hydrolysis in order to separate substances contained in the lignocellulosic material M from each other (Pa [0044]), inside the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M is treated at a first pressure P1 that is kept constant throughout the reactor 8, and at the opening 11 the lignocellulosic material M is discharged into the vessel 13, or into a conduit 12 that is in fluid communication with the vessel 13, that is held at a second pressure P2 that is significantly lower than the first pressure P1, due to a sharp pressure drop from the first pressure P1 to the second pressure P2 at the opening 11, the lignocellulosic material M that passes through the opening 11 is suddenly expanded and undergoes a steam explosion that disintegrates fibers of the lignocellulosic material M, and it is advantageous to maintain the second pressure P2 at a constant level so that the pressure drop is also kept constant, since this allows for creating a uniform pulp from the lignocellulosic material M where the fibers have all undergone steam explosion and been disintegrated to smaller particles in a uniform way (Pa [0048]). Lamber further teaches that by continuously supplying lignocellulosic material M through the reactor inlet 81 and continuously discharging hydrolyzed lignocellulosic material M through the reactor outlet 83 a continuous operation of the reactor 8 is achieved, this is particularly advantageous in limiting the amount of steam S that is required at any given time for heating the lignocellulosic material M and increasing pressure in the reactor 8, so that a steam generator used for producing the steam can be kept at a significantly lower capacity than would be the case in a discontinuous operation of the reactor 8 (Pa [0050]) and a steam inlet 82 is also provided to allow for a supply of steam S to enter the reactor 8, preferably through a first steam valve 33 (Pa [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Fechter with the teachings of Lamber and substitute Lamber’s defibrator system for Fechter’s steaming vessel for the purpose of defibrating re-cycling lignocellulosic fibers in a steam explosion process with a lower production cost and high-quality fibers.
With respect to claim 53, Lamber as applied in the combination regarding claim 52 above further teaches that the heating using steam is achieved by introducing the refined material from recycled wood fiberboards into a pressure vessel, the pressure vessel has a continuous flow (“By continuously supplying lignocellulosic material M through the reactor inlet 81 and continuously discharging hydrolyzed lignocellulosic material M through the reactor outlet 83 a continuous operation of the reactor 8 is achieved.”, Pa [0050], and in that the pressure during the process in this pressure vessel is kept more or less constant, that is to say that the pressure difference between the highest pressure and the lowest pressure in this pressure vessel during the process is less than 1 bar (“Inside the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M is treated at a first pressure P1 that is kept constant throughout the reactor 8”, Pa [0048]).
With respect to claim 54, Lamber as applied in the combination regarding claim 53 above further teaches that the step in which the pressure of the material is reduced takes place in a receiving unit comprising, for example, a vessel, wherein liquid water is continuously or periodically discharged from this receiving unit (“at the opening 11 the lignocellulosic material M is discharged into the vessel 13…that is held at a second pressure P2 that is significantly lower than the first pressure P1.”, P a[0048]; “The vessel 13 preferably comprises a cyclone 29 where steam S is separated from the lignocellulosic material M. Gases removed from the reactor 8 and transported to the vessel 13 in the gas conduit 14 may also be supplied to the cyclone 29 and be removed along with the steam S through a second gas conduit 17 from the vessel 13 to a condenser 18.”, Pa [0053]).
With respect to claim 58, Fechter as applied to claim 42 above teaches that in the steaming vessel, the fiberboard pieces 110 are positioned on a distance element to keep them separate from condense water and steamed 111 by pressurizing the steaming vessel with steam (Pa [0042]) and further teaches that after the steaming, the lignocellulosic fibers are released from each other, but they are present as fluffy and resilient, pillow like portions comprising lignocellulosic fibers, the lignocellulosic fibers are however still loosely attached to each other (Pa [0020]), but does not explicitly teach that during the step of reducing the pressure of the refined material from recycled wood fiberboards, steam explosion occurs in this material.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for defibrating a lignocellulosic material in a steam explosion process, Lamber teaches that there is always a supply of lignocellulosic material M that can be continuously fed into the reactor 8 during operation of the defibrator system 100 (Pa [0040]), inside the reactor 8, the lignocellulosic material M is heated to an elevated temperature by means of the steam S, as it passes through the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M undergoes hydrolysis in order to separate substances contained in the lignocellulosic material M from each other (Pa [0044]), inside the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M is treated at a first pressure P1 that is kept constant throughout the reactor 8, and at the opening 11 the lignocellulosic material M is discharged into the vessel 13, or into a conduit 12 that is in fluid communication with the vessel 13, that is held at a second pressure P2 that is significantly lower than the first pressure P1, due to a sharp pressure drop from the first pressure P1 to the second pressure P2 at the opening 11, the lignocellulosic material M that passes through the opening 11 is suddenly expanded and undergoes a steam explosion that disintegrates fibers of the lignocellulosic material M, and it is advantageous to maintain the second pressure P2 at a constant level so that the pressure drop is also kept constant, since this allows for creating a uniform pulp from the lignocellulosic material M where the fibers have all undergone steam explosion and been disintegrated to smaller particles in a uniform way (Pa [0048]). Lamber further teaches that by continuously supplying lignocellulosic material M through the reactor inlet 81 and continuously discharging hydrolyzed lignocellulosic material M through the reactor outlet 83 a continuous operation of the reactor 8 is achieved, this is particularly advantageous in limiting the amount of steam S that is required at any given time for heating the lignocellulosic material M and increasing pressure in the reactor 8, so that a steam generator used for producing the steam can be kept at a significantly lower capacity than would be the case in a discontinuous operation of the reactor 8 (Pa [0050]) and a steam inlet 82 is also provided to allow for a supply of steam S to enter the reactor 8, preferably through a first steam valve 33 (Pa [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Fechter with the teachings of Lamber and substitute Lamber’s defibrator system for Fechter’s steaming vessel for the purpose of defibrating re-cycling lignocellulosic fibers in a steam explosion process with a lower production cost and high-quality fibers.
With respect to claim 59, Lamber as applied in the combination regarding claim 58 above further teaches that the steam explosion is carried out by pressing the material through an opening, the material ending up in an environment of lower pressure, as a result of which a rapid pressure drop in the material occurs, thus causing the steam explosion (“Inside the reactor 8 the lignocellulosic material M is treated at a first pressure P1 that is kept constant throughout the reactor 8, and at the opening 11 the lignocellulosic material M is discharged into the vessel 13, or into a conduit 12 that is in fluid communication with the vessel 13, that is held at a second pressure P2 that is significantly lower than the first pressure P1. Due to a sharp pressure drop from the first pressure P1 to the second pressure P2 at the opening 11, the lignocellulosic material M that passes through the opening 11 is suddenly expanded and undergoes a steam explosion that disintegrates fibers of the lignocellulosic material M.”, Pa [0048]).
With respect to claim 60, Lamber as applied in the combination regarding claim 59 above further teaches that the steam explosion is carried out after the material has been conveyed in a screw (“A fourth screw 9 is provided at the reactor outlet 83 and transports hydrolyzed lignocellulosic material M from the reactor 8, optionally also by means of a fifth screw 10 to an orifice or opening 11 that may be provided in the form of a valve with an adjustable or constant opening.”, Pa [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742