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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 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.
In Claim 1 the phrase “kappa number and/or R18” makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the entire list of physical parameter being controlled must all be monitored, or if only the kappa number may be optionally switched out for the R18. This applies to all dependent claims. For the purpose of this office action, it is assumed any of the listed physical parameters may be monitored/controlled to meet the limitations of the claims. Clarification for the record on this point is requested in the remarks.
The phrase in claim 1 part D “biooil or bio-coal” is in direct conflict with the limitations of claim C, which require a bio-oil be produced. The ‘or” indicated that only bio-coal may be produced. Claim 16 requires that both coal and oil be produced. Further clarification for the record should be made for claim 1 that clearly states is oil or coal or both must be produced. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed oil and coal must be produced.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05©. Claim 3, 7, and 17 all have ranges with smaller ranger thereafter. Also present are percentages with smaller percentages thereafter. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 is indefinite. The phase “to remove a remaining resin” makes no sense in English. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed this implies no claim limitation.
Claims 5-6, 9, and 11 the phrase “liquid/material” ratio lacks antecedent basis. The phrase is also indefinite because it is unclear what “material” refers to. Material could be interpreted as solids, the total composition or something else. There are no units attached, therefore what the ratio is (mass or other) in also indefinite. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed this implies no limitation.
Claim 7 part M-1 is indefinite, the “5% to 45%” is not labeled as to what material the percentage is applied to. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed this implies no limitation. Part M-2 is also indefinite as it is unclear what the dry mass percentage refers to. If it is a dry mass what is the percentage for? Claim 7 assumes carbonization, but does not require it by further limiting claim 1 where it is HTL or HTC. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed HTC is still optional for claim 7.
Claim 8 is indefinite. The term such as makes it unclear if the following claim limitations (paper, tissue) must apply. Claim 8 is also indefinite as the and/or in step N3 makes it unclear of all steps N1-N4 must be present to meet the limitations of the claims or if a singular step may meet the claim limitations.
Claim 10 is indefinite. The sodium bisulfate is not called ammonium bisulfite, but in chemical form. The chemical form is improper as there are no subscripts. This conflicts with the rest of the application which uses term. It is also indefinite as use of the as the ammonium bisulfite is used to “pre-hydrolyzing”. In claim 1 added the ammonium bisulfate is referred to as hydrolyzing. It is unclear what the difference between the pre and non-pre hydrolyzing is supposed to be, or if there is any difference to the claim limitations. Please add make the numbers in the chemicals formulas of claim 10 subscripts. Please change “an atmospheric pressure” to “at atmospheric pressure”.
Claims 11 is indefinite. The term prehydrolysed lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 requires the hydrolyzing to be done by ammonium bisulfite, part A-5 does not.
Claim 12 part b-1 is indefinite, the “45% to 65%” is not labeled as to what material the percentage is applied to. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed this implies no limitation.
Please standardize/choose a consistent spelling for the word “hydrolysing/hydrolyzing” throughout all claim language in all claims, as both forms of the word are used, often in the same claim. This is found in claim 11 and multiple other claims.
Claim 17 is indefinite. The phrase “2 to 4% w/w%” is unclear. What is the top part of the ratio, and what is the bottom to get the precent? The term desalted oil has no antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 2019/0263700 A1) and Levie et al (US 2011/0124056 A1) and Pardo et al (US 2017/210625 A1).
Xu teaches a process for hydrothermal liquefaction of a lignocellulosic material. See abstract.
The feed is wood, see p 43.
This under pretreatment processing, see p 45. This includes washing and filtering.
The feedstock undergoes HTL to produces bio-char (coal) bio-oil and bio gas. See Fig 1. The process can be continuous or batch, see p 54.
Regarding claim 11, running batches in parallel to increase production amount is an well known and obvious variant of running a batch process.
Regarding claim 14 The examiner takes official notice that cleaning gas fractions used for fuel of hydrogen sulfide ammonia and other containments and via a water scrubber is well-known and widely used in the prior art.
Xu does not teach hydrolyzing the lignocellulosic material using ammonium bisulfite.
Levie teaches pretreatment of a lignocellulosic biomass. The purpose is to produce more pure biofuels, see p 5.
. Up to 10% of dry weight of the mass has ammonium bisulfite added. This is to preform hydrolysis. See p 9-11. The is done at 140C-210C for up to 120 minutes at room pressure. This can be done in a acidic environment, thus the ph includes the range of 4-7. See p 10-20.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pretreatment hydrolysis of Levie in the invention of Xu. Xu already calls for pretreatment, and the hydrolysis of Levie has the advantage of making for purer bio-oils.
Xu does not teach generating steam to operate the previous part of the process.
Pardo teaches Hydrothermal carbonization of cellulosic mass, See abstract. Steam generated by the process is used to heat other parts of the process, see p 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any steam generated in Xu to heat other parts of the process as taught in Pardo. This has the advantage of saving costs by saving energy.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 2019/0263700 A1) and Levie et al (US 2011/0124056 A1) and Katz et al (US 4440601).
Xu does not teach multiple-effect distillation of the bio-oil.
Katz teaches multiple-effect distillation of fluids including oils for purification. See column 5 lines 20-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multiple-effect distillation of Katz to purify the liquid/biooil of Xu. This has the advantage of making a pure and separated product.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no allowable subject matter due to 112 rejections. Claims with no prior art rejection applied are listed below with what is not taught.
Regarding claim 2 treating wood chips with hot air prior to hydrolysis to accelerate resin production is not taught or suggested.
Regarding claim 7 claims M-1 to M-4 are not taught or suggested.
Regarding claim 9 defibrating and then subsequent addition of recycled paper is not taught or suggested.
Regarding claim 10 steps A5 is not taught or suggested.
Regarding claim 12 steps B-1 to B-3 are not taught or suggested.
Regarding claim 17 Steps H1-H4 are not taught or suggested.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights