DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/7/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-7 are amended. Claims 1-7 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "wherein the precipitation of lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution >6 KDa is carried out by lowering a pH of black liquor by means of CO2 in claim 2.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-7 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner understands the term to be removed from the phrase it is present.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (CN 106317418 A) in view of PU (US 20140186627 A1).
For claim 1, ZHANG teaches a method of producing sodium lignin sulfonate from black liquor [0012]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for separating water and at least one lignin fraction, lignin derivatives, low-molecular carboxylic acids, sodium sulfate or a mixture thereof from filtrates originating from black liquor from a kraft process”. ZHANG teaches the black liquor is filtered to a solids content of 20% to 30% [0014]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein - before a first separation step, the black liquor is concentrated to a solids content of between 25 and 55 wt.% solids content”. ZHANG teaches the pH of the solution is 9 to 10.5 prior to oxidation [0024]. This range overlaps the instant range of “ in the first separation step, polymeric lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution > 6 kDa is precipitated and filtered off by lowering a pH of black liquor to a value in a range of pH 8 to pH 10”. ZHANG teaches the oxidation is completed by adding sulfuric acid [0025]. ZHANG also teaches the filtrate contains lignin [0025]. This teaches the limitation of “whereby a first filtrate is obtained in addition to lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution > 6 kDa”, “the first basic filtrate obtained is acidified with sulfuric acid,- a precipitate formed consisting of lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution of < 6 kDa is separated by filtration and a second acidic filtrate is obtained”; ZHANG teaches the temperature is lowered below 50°C to better control the sulfonation [0029]. This range encompasses the instant claim range of “the second filtrate is cooled to a temperature of less than 25 *C”. ZHANG teaches the calcium sulfate is removed from the filtrate containing lignin sulfonate that is later crystallized [0008]. This teaches the limitation of “whereby a fraction consisting substantially of inorganic salts, is crystallized out after addition of seed crystals;- filtering off the precipitate formed, which consists substantially of inorganic salts whereby a third filtrate containing low-molecular carboxylic acid-soluble lignin and residues of the inorganic salts is obtained” ZHANG teaches the waste liquor is further treated [0008]. The Examiner notes the claim language of “and/or” allows the teaching of one of the optional limitations to satisfy the claim limitation. This teaches the limitation of “returning dried sodium sulfate to the third filtrate and carrying out a second crystallization of Na2S04.10H2O; and/or- returning the third filtrate into a pulp production process or;carrying out a reactive extraction of the third filtrate”. ZHANG teaches the filtrate is treated with sulfuric acid and then dried (evaporation) [0008]. This teaches the limitation of “evaporating or distilling the third filtrate to obtain a product condensate containing a first fraction containing a plurality of different organic low-molecular acids and a product residue containing at least organic acids and/or polyphenols”.
ZHANG does not teach the molecular weight of the lignin derivative throughout the process.
PU teaches a similar lignin separation process from black liquor [abstract]. PU further teaches the molecular weight of the precipitated lignin derivative is dependent on the pH of the solution [0252]. PU teaches the similar use of hydroxide to balance the pH between 7 to 8 [0210]. PU also teaches the final molecular weight is greater than 3910 Da. This range encompasses instant range of “whereby a first filtrate is obtained in addition to lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution > 6 kDa” and overlaps the instant range of “a precipitate formed consisting of lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution of < 6 kDa is separated by filtration”. PU teaches the process improves efficiency with faster lignin precipitation, optimal particle formation, higher washing efficiency and stable operation [0216]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the pH conditions of PU into the method of ZHANG. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved lignin precipitation, optimal particle formation, higher washing efficiency and stable operation as taught by PU.
For claim 2, ZHANG and PU teach the method according to claim 1, as above. PU teaches the use of Carbon Dioxide to balance pH [0312]. PU also teaches the final molecular weight is greater than 3910 Da. This range encompasses instant range of “wherein the precipitation of lignin with a number average of the molecular mass distribution > 6 KDa is carried out by lowering a pH of black liquor by means of CO2”.
For claim 3, ZHANG and PU teach the method according to claim 1, as above. PU teaches liquid is treated to a pH of 4.76 [Table 9] with sulfuric acid [0304]. This values is within instant claim range of “wherein the first basic filtrate is acidified with sulfuric acid to an acidic pH greater than 2”.
For claim 4, ZHANG and PU teach the method according to claim 1, as above. PU teaches the use of highly concentrated sodium sulfate during crystallization [0220 and 0223]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein substantially pure Na2SO4.10H20 is crystallized from the second filtrate containing inorganic salts”.
For claim 7, ZHANG and PU teach the method according to claim 1, as above. PU teaches the removal and further treatment of phenolic compounds [0063]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a product residue remaining after evaporation or distillation of the third filtrate is further processed to obtain phenolic components”.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (CN 106317418 A) PU (US 20140186627 A1) in view of AHSAN et al (Recovery of Acetic Acid from the Prehydrolysis Liquor of Kraft Based Dissolving Pulp Production Process: Sodium Hydroxide Back Extraction from the Trioctylamine/Octanol System).
For claim 5 ZHANG and PU teach the method according to claim 1, as above. ZHANG and PU are silent to the use of octanol and trioctylamine (TOA). AHSAN et al teaches a similar acid extraction step from black liquor using organic acids [abstract]. AHSAN further teaches the use of TOA and Octanol together as an organic solvent [abstract] at 25°C [Extraction and Regeneration Methods]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the reactive extraction of the third filtrate is carried out using a mixture containing an organic solvent, 1-octanol, and at least one of trioctylphosphine oxide or trioctylamine at temperatures between 20 and 80°C”. AHSAN also teaches the advantage of the extraction with TOA and Octanol is an improved efficiency [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the solvent of AHSAN into the method of ZHANG. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved efficiency as taught by AHSAN.
For claim 6, ZHANG and PU teach the method according to claim 1, as above. ZHANG and PU are silent to the use of distillation during extraction. AHSAN et al teaches a similar acid extraction step from black liquor using organic acids [abstract]. AHSAN further teaches the use of distillation to extract carboxylic acid from solution [paragraph 3 of Introduction]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein evaporation or distillation of the third filtrate is carried out as steam distillation to separate volatile low-molecular carboxylic acids”. AHSAN also teaches the advantage of the extraction with TOA and Octanol is an improved efficiency [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the solvent of AHSAN into the method of ZHANG. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved efficiency as taught by AHSAN.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights