Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 7/7/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-15 are pending with claims 13-15 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the TPH vessel" in lines 4 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant does not mention “a TPH vessel”. Further the claim refers to “an autoclave” in line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydrolyzed product" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should recite forming “a hydrolyzed product” earlier in the claim.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 5 claims “a pressure vessel”. It is not clear if this is the “autoclave” vessel of claim 1. Claim 5 should be amended to conform with claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pressure vessel" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
The term “high starch” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high starch” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “early season” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early season” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “later” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “later” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high efficiency” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high efficiency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the microorganism” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the non-toxic microorganism”.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0118483 GAO et al., hereinafter GAO, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK, and as evidenced by Energy Analysis of a Kraft Pup Mill: Potential for Energy Efficiency and Advanced Biomass Cogeneration by SUBBBISH et al., hereinafter SUBBISH.
As for claim 1, GAO disclose a pretreatment of biomass including with alkaline kraft treatment [0065, Figure 3 (302)]. After hydrolysis the hydrolysis product is sent to separation which separates the product into a solid stream and a liquid stream [0068, Figure 4]. Both streams travel to hydrolysis (306) [Figure 3]. The process of hydrolysis breaks the cellulose into monomeric sugars [0079].
GAO discloses kraft (an alkaline process) but does not disclose an autoclave, steam, and agitation.
SMOOK discloses kraft pulping and discloses a batch digester which is fed with steam and alkaline chemicals [pg., 85 Figure 8-1]. The material therein is agitated by an internal circulation and direct steam injection at the top [pg. 85 col. 2] or direct steam injection at the bottom [pg. 86 Figure 8-4].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the pressurized batch digester of SMOOK for the kraft treatment of GAO. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by SMOOK for more reliable operation, greater operational flexibility [pg. 84 col. 2].
As for claim 2-4, GAO discloses the lignocellulose can be the agricultural product of rice straw [0060].
As for claim 5, SMOOK discloses displacement batch cooking. The biomass is filled into the digester and packed with steam [pg. 88 col. 1 par. 2]. The steam from packing is low pressure steam [pg. 85 Figure 8-1] Low pressure steam in a pulp mill has a pressure of about 55 psig (3.8 bar g) which falls within the claimed range as evidenced by SUBBISH [Table 1]. Low pressure steam at 55 psig has a saturated steam temperature of about 150 degrees C which falls within the claimed range. SMOOK discloses after cooking was water displacement occurs which decreases the temperature and therefore the pressure. The pulp is discharged from the vessel having been delignified [pg. 88 col. 1 par. 1]
As for claim 6, the vessel has a vertical decline with the discharge end at the bottom [pg. 85 Figure 8-2].
As for claim 7, SMOOK discloses low pressure steam is introduced to the top of the digester [pg. 85 Figure 8-1]. Low pressure steam has a pressure of about 55 psig (3.8 bar g) which falls within the claimed range. Low pressure steam at 55 psig has a saturated steam temperature of about 150 degrees C which falls within the claimed range.
The batch digester of SMOOK is evacuated (emptied) after cooking [pg. 87 col 1]. SMOOK also discloses cooking at 150 degrees C [pg. 88 col. 1 par. 3].
As for claim 8, SMOOK also discloses cooking at 150 degrees C [pg. 88 col. 1 par. 3]. To reach this temperature the temperature passes through 120-140 degrees C. The pulp is also cooled during displacement through this temperature.
As for claim 9, SMOOK also discloses cooking at 150 degrees C [pg. 88 col. 1 par. 3].
As for claim 10, GAO discloses the solids are fed to the hydrolysis reactor (306) [Figure 4]. GAO discloses after the hydrolysis the monomeric sugars are at least 85% of the total weight [0109] which overlaps with the instant claimed ranger making a prima facie case of obviousness.
As for claims 11-12, GAO discloses that the monomeric sugars are used to make biofuel (ethanol/butanol) or other bioproducts [0141] by fermentation with bacteria and yeast [0142].
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
Prosecution Insights