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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/937380 application originally filed November 05, 2024.
Amended claims 1 and 3-9, filed March 12, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 10, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya et al. (JP 2015-035973 A) hereinafter cited English Translation “Tatsuya” in view of Mennell et al. (US 2022/0396529) hereinafter “Mennell” and Hayashi et al. (US 2017/0218290) hereinafter “Hayashi”.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4 and 9
Tatsuya discloses on page 2, the carbide is produced by carbonizing biomass using biomass containing cellulose (for example, coconut shell, sawdust, etc.) as a raw material. Since biomass containing cellulose, which is a raw material for carbide.
Tatsuya discloses on page , the biomass-derived material production method is a biomass-derived material production method for producing a biomass-derived material using a biomass-derived polysaccharide containing cellulose as a starting material. A step of producing a sugar solution containing a monosaccharide by hydrolyzing a polysaccharide by bringing the carbide produced by carbonizing at a predetermined temperature of 150 ° C to 500 ° C into contact with the polysaccharide.
Tatsuya discloses on page 7, in the biomass-derived material production system 100, the sugar liquid production apparatus 110 uses a polysaccharide derived from biomass containing cellulose, such as woody biomass, as a starting material, and applies a saccharification treatment to the polysaccharide derived from biomass to make a monosaccharide (glucose, xylose). ) To produce a sugar solution GS. Here, the biomass-derived polysaccharide is selected from the group of cellulose, hemicellulose, cellulose-derived suspended polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is insoluble in water due to the large size of the polysaccharides, cellulose-derived water-soluble oligosaccharide, hemicellulose-derived suspended polysaccharide, hemicellulose-derived water-soluble oligosaccharide. Contains one or more polysaccharides.
Tatsuya discloses on page 2, the carbide has an acidic functional group on the surface, and when the carbide and the polysaccharide are brought into contact with each other, the polysaccharide is hydrolyzed into a monosaccharide by the acidic functional group of the carbide. Here, the acidic functional group is a functional group capable of lowering the pH of the solvent. For example, the acidic functional group is a cyclic carbonization having a carboxyl group (—COOH), a phenolic hydroxyl group (—OH), and a lactone group (—COO—). Hydrogen group).
Tatsuya discloses the claimed solid material but fails to specifically teach the fixed carbon rate and diameter of the material as presently claimed.
However, Mennell discloses a solid material comprising the claimed properties of the fixed carbon rate and diameter.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0002, biocarbon compositions that are optimized for various chemical and physical properties, and processes of making and using such biocarbon compositions.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0007, the biocarbon compositions of the present disclosure can comprise: at least about 1 wt % to at most about 99 wt % of a low fixed carbon material, wherein the low fixed carbon material comprises a first fixed carbon concentration of at least about 20 wt % to at most about 55 wt % fixed carbon on an absolute basis; at least about 1 wt % to at most about 99 wt % of a high fixed carbon material, wherein the high fixed carbon material comprises a second fixed carbon concentration of at least about 50 wt % to at most about 100 wt % fixed carbon on an absolute basis, and wherein the second fixed carbon concentration is greater than the first fixed carbon concentration; at least about 0 wt % to at most about 30 wt % moisture; at least about 0 wt % to at most about 15 wt % ash; and at least about 0 wt % to at most about 20 wt % of an additive; wherein a total wt %, calculated as a sum of the low fixed carbon material, the high fixed carbon material, moisture, ash, and the additive, is at most 100 wt %.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0073, the carbon-based reagents herein are derived, at least in part, from renewable resources. Mennell discloses in paragraph 0074, “biomass” is a term used to describe biologically produced matter, or biogenic matter. The chemical energy contained in biomass is derived from solar energy using the natural process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants take in carbon dioxide and water from their surroundings and, using energy from sunlight, convert them into sugars, starches, cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Of all the renewable energy sources, biomass is unique in that it is, effectively, stored solar energy. Furthermore, biomass is the only renewable source of carbon.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0109, the biocarbon composition is in the form of powder. Various particle sizes can be present in the powder. For example, the average particle diameter can be at least about 100 nanometers to at most about 500 microns.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0137, the first feedstock and the second feedstock are the same type of feedstock.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0138, in some embodiments, the first feedstock comprises softwood chips, hardwood chips, timber harvesting residues, tree branches, tree stumps, leaves, bark, sawdust, corn, corn stover, wheat, wheat straw, rice, rice straw, sugarcane, sugarcane bagasse, sugarcane straw, energy cane, sugar beets, sugar beet pulp, sunflowers, sorghum, canola, algae, miscanthus, alfalfa, switchgrass, fruits, fruit shells, fruit stalks, fruit peels, fruit pits, vegetables, vegetable shells, vegetable stalks, vegetable peels, vegetable pits, grape pumice, almond shells, pecan shells, coconut shells, coffee grounds, food waste, commercial waste, grass pellets, hay pellets, wood pellets, cardboard, paper, paper pulp, paper packaging, paper trimmings, food packaging, construction and/or demolition waste, railroad ties, lignin, animal manure, municipal solid waste, municipal sewage, or a combination thereof. Mennell discloses in paragraph 0139, in some embodiments, the second feedstock comprises softwood chips, hardwood chips, timber harvesting residues, tree branches, tree stumps, leaves, bark, sawdust, corn, corn stover, wheat, wheat straw, rice, rice straw, sugarcane, sugarcane bagasse, sugarcane straw, energy cane, sugar beets, sugar beet pulp, sunflowers, sorghum, canola, algae, miscanthus, alfalfa, switchgrass, fruits, fruit shells, fruit stalks, fruit peels, fruit pits, vegetables, vegetable shells, vegetable stalks, vegetable peels, vegetable pits, grape pumice, almond shells, pecan shells, coconut shells, coffee grounds, food waste, commercial waste, grass pellets, hay pellets, wood pellets, cardboard, paper, paper pulp, paper packaging, paper trimmings, food packaging, construction and/or demolition waste, railroad ties, lignin, animal manure, municipal solid waste, municipal sewage, or a combination thereof.
Mennell discloses in paragraph 0140, a biomass-containing feedstock includes biomass (such as a biomass source listed above) as well as a non-renewable feedstock, such as coal.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the biomass material of Mennell with the specific properties of fixed carbon and diameter, as the biomass of Tatsuya. The motivation to do so is to use a renewable material that aids in carbon material.
Tatsuya discloses on page 5, The solid residue SR separated by the separation unit 240 includes carbides, suspended polysaccharides that can be decomposed by carbides but not decomposed, and insoluble materials such as polysaccharides and lignin that cannot be decomposed by carbides.
It is to be noted, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the peak temperature range of the solid material will vary depending upon the heating/thermal conditions. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Tatsuya discloses the claimed solid material but fails to specifically teach the solid material is produced by heating and pulverizing using a ball mill under heating at 100℃ or higher and lower than 300°C as presently claimed.
However, it is known in the art that the solid material is produced by heating and pulverizing using a ball mill under heating at 100℃ or higher and lower than 300°C, as taught by Hayashi.
Hayashi discloses in the abstract, a biomass solid fuel is provided which, when exposed to rain water, has a reduced COD in discharged water and has low disintegration-property, while suppressing an increase in cost. The present invention relates to a biomass solid fuel obtained by molding pulverized biomass, having a fuel ratio (fixed carbon/volatile matter) of 0.2 to 0.8, dry-basis higher heating value of 4800 to 7000 (kcal/kg), a molar ratio of oxygen O to carbon C (O/C) of 0.1 to 0.7, and a molar ratio of hydrogen H to carbon C (H/C) is 0.8 to 1.3.
Hayashi further discloses in paragraph 0183, the pulverizing rate in FIG. 2 is a ground weight per a unit time (g/min) as determined by measuring the weight of a ground sample which is a fraction passing through a 150 μm sieve after pulverizing a sample of 700 cc with a ball mill. Herein, measuring was carried out by using a ball mill conforming to JIS M4002, wherein into a cylindrical container having an inner diameter of 305 mm×axial length of 305 mm, normal grade ball bearings as defined in JIS B1501 (Φ36.5 mm×43 balls, Φ30.2 mm×67 balls, Φ24.4 mm×10 balls, Φ19.1 mm×71 balls and Φ15.9 mm×94 balls) were charged and the container was rotated at a speed of 70 rpm. Heating improves the pulverizing rate, in particular, heating at 230° C or higher considerably increases the pulverizing rate. It can be considered that elution and solidification associated with heating of organic ingredients such as tar leads to an increase in hardness of the biomass solid fuel and improvement of pulverizing efficiency. Therefore, even in the case where the heating temperature is 150° C or higher and lower than 230° C, improved HGI and pulverizing rate are expected.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid material of Tatsuya to be produced by heating and pulverizing using a ball mill under heating at 100℃ or higher and lower than 300°C, as taught by Hayashi. The motivation to do so is to use a ball milling process in order to pulverize the solid material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to the newly submitted claimed amendments, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 9 under Tatsuya et al. (JP 2015-035973 A) hereinafter cited English Translation “Tatsuya” in view of Mennell et al. (US 2022/0396529) hereinafter “Mennell” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tatsuya et al. (JP 2015-035973 A) hereinafter cited English Translation “Tatsuya” in view of Mennell et al. (US 2022/0396529) hereinafter “Mennell” and Hayashi et al. (US 2017/0218290) hereinafter “Hayashi”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights