Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 3/7/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The term “floatation” is the less used spelling of “flotation”.
The Examiner interprets the pressure of claim 12 to be a “gauge” pressure
Specification and drawings
The title uses the term “Ligan” it should be lignin.
The specification uses the term “ligan” 14 times it should be lignin
The drawings are objected to because they use the term “lignan” which should be lignin, specifically Figures 3 and 4. Figures 3 and 4 also incorrectly uses the term “ligang”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 9 “third products” should be singular “a third product”.
In claim 10 “mositer” should be “moisture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 and/or 6 be found allowable, claims 14 and/or 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 12 the applicant claims “solid acid catalyst”. However, the applicant only gives three examples from a vast array of potential catalysts. These are kaolin, bentonite, and montmorillonite which are all clays (further bentonite is typically an alkaline clay).
The written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)
The applicant does not have support for the whole genus of “solid acid catalysts” when the only examples given are part of the sub-genus of clays. The largest genus the applicant has written descriptive support for is “clays”. The applicant fails to describe the characteristics including physical and chemical properties that would define the large genus of “solid acid catalysts”.
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 1- 15 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 1 recites the limitation “the crusher assembly” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant must first mention “a crusher assembly”. The Examiner suggests the amendment to line 2 of claim 1 “in a crusher assembly crushing and grinding the lignocellulosic material under pressure with a solid”.
Claim 1 recites “reslurrying the solid mixture” in line 12, however, there is not step separating the solids such that they would require reslurrying. The Examiner suggest “separating the solid mixture from the third product then reslurrying the solid mixture”
Claims 2-11, 14, and 15 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
In claims 6 and 15 it is not clear during what part of claim1 the sugars of different chain lengths are broken down. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets the claims as “during hydrolyzing the first product”.
Claim 7 states that the lignocellulosic materials are heated to a “predetermined heat”. The examiner believes the applicant meant “predetermined temperature” to be in line with the instant specification [0033]
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the crusher assembly” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant must first mention “a crusher assembly”. The Examiner suggests the amendment to line 9 of claim 12 “crushing the mixture in a reaction chamber comprising a crusher assembly to induce a solid-solid chemical”.
In claim 12, the applicant fails to disclose the ratio of materials basis. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets ratio of materials to be by weight.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748