DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 22, 24-26, 31, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Harris et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0008749.
Regarding claim 1 and 36, Harris teaches a method for the preparation of a cellulose-containing composition (see abstract) comprising the steps of:
(a) forming a first slurry comprising a cellulose-containing feedstock [0154], water [0158], and acid [0166];
(b) subjecting the first slurry to rapid heating to a first temperature (180-205 [0803], by addition of subcritical, near critical or supercritical water (see example 1), at a first pressure (around 20 bar [0803]), thereby forming a second slurry (see example 1);
(c) maintaining the second slurry at the first temperature and first pressure for a first time period (20-30 minutes [0803]);
(d) rapidly depressurizing the second slurry to form a third slurry at a second temperature and a second pressure [0803]; and
(e) separating the liquid portion from the solid portion of the third slurry [0803], the solid portion of which comprises the cellulose-containing composition (see example 1);
wherein the first temperature is in the range of 180°C to 280°C (180-205 [0803]); and wherein the cellulose contained in the cellulose-containing composition has a weight average molecular weight between 40,000 grams/mole and 155,000 grams/mole (40,000 [0130]).
Regarding claim 3, Harris further teaches wherein the cellulose-containing feedstock comprises cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin, or a mixture thereof [0059].
Regarding claim 4, Harris further teaches wherein the cellulose-containing feedstock is selected from woody biomass, pea hulls, corn fiber, soy hulls, citrus residues, cocoa shells, cotton, oat fiber, bran fiber, bagasse, crop grasses, hemp, cereals, fruits, vegetables, paper products and wood products, and mixtures of two or more thereof [0058].
Regarding claim 5, Harris further teaches wherein the first temperature is in the range from 200°C to less than or equal to 260°C (205 in examples).
Regarding claim 6, Harris further teaches wherein the first time period is from 0.5 second to 4 seconds [0165].
Regarding claim 7, Harris further teaches wherein the rapidly depressurizing occurs over a period of less than 5% of the first time period (while an exact time is not given the same act of rapid depressurizing to an immediate end result is utilized and taught in the methods of the examples, absent a showing of unexpected results for the same explosive decompression as taught it would have been considered to be an obvious and inferred teaching of the act of explosively decompression the solution).
Regarding claim 8, Harris further teaches wherein the rapid heating occurs over a period of from 5% to 50% of the first time period (see example 1).
Regarding claim 9, Harris further teaches wherein the first pressure is in the range from 1,500 psi to 3,600 psi (less than 250 bar which equals less than 3625 PSI as shown in example 1).
Regarding claim 10, Harris further teaches wherein the second pressure is in the range of 5 psi to 75 psi (taught to ambient pressure which is considered to be around 15 psi).
Regarding claim 11, Harris further teaches wherein the second temperature is in the range from 45°C to 150°C (see examples).
Regarding claim 22, Harris further teaches that the pH of the first slurry is in the range from pH 1.0 to pH 3.0 [0260].
Regarding claim 24, Harris further teaches wherein the cellulose-containing composition comprises from 60% to 90% cellulose based on the total weight of the cellulose-containing composition [0117].
Regarding claim 25, Harris further teaches wherein the cellulose-containing composition comprises microcrystalline cellulose [0132].
Regarding claim 26, Harris further teaches wherein the cellulose-containing composition comprises at least 50% microcrystalline cellulose based on the total weight of the cellulose-containing composition (see example 4, MCC was the pure starting cellulose base).
Regarding claim 31, Harris further teaches wherein the cellulose-containing composition further comprises lignin or hemicellulose, or a mixture thereof [0119].
Regarding claim 34, Harris further teaches wherein the particles of the cellulose-containing composition have a mean particle size between 20 µm and 110 µm (90 [0132]).
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) 1-11, 22, 24-26, 31, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0008749 in view of Cantero et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0386631.
Regarding claims 1 and 2 above Harris remains as applied in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above. To further address the molecular weight of the cellulose in the product and not just the Mz of the gram/mol of the cellulose, Cantero is applied.
Cantero also teaches the exact same process as Harris. See [0095-0096] for the production of the same end products.
Cantero further states that the cellulose produced form this same process can include cellulose in the range of 2000-180000 g/mol [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the full acceptable range of molecular weight as taught by Cantero in the production of the same products. Absent a showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of 75,000-155,000 g/mol, this would be a simple act of routine optimization to arrive at a known value range of 2000-180,000.
Regarding claims 3-11, 22, 24-26, 31, 34, and 36, Harris remains as applied above.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0008749 in view of Cantero et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0386631 in further view of Tolan et al, US Patent Publication 2013/0143285.
Regarding claims 13 and 15 Harris remains as applied above but is silent as to what the acid that can be added is.
In the same field of endeavor of preparing lignocellulosic feedstocks prior to decompression, Tolan teaches that preferred pretreating acids are sulfuric acid [0027 and 0092] as well as specific amino acids for aiding int eh breaking down of the feed stock [0126].
It would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the known acids for pretreating biomass as taught by Tolan in the Harris method for the benefit of pre-treating the starting feedstock to aid in the break down of the materials in a known and conventional manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights