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 Final Office action is based on the 18/949426 application originally filed November 15, 2024.
Amended claims 1-10, 31-34 and 36-40, filed September 29, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 11-30 and 35 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 1-6, 10, 31-34, 36, 37, 38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Waanders et al. (US 2018/0119040) hereinafter “Waanders”.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 10, 31-34, 36, 37, 38 and 40
Waanders discloses in paragraph 0001, a process for the production of a carbonaceous feedstock material from waste-containing carbon sources.
Waanders discloses in paragraphs 0023-0027, a process for producing a carbonaceous feedstock material from waste containing carbon sources, the process including the steps of: (i) introducing a source of biochar to a source of discard coal fines to form a bio-coal mixture; (ii) introducing a catalyst additive selected from the group consisting of a source of an alkali metal or a source of an alkaline earth metal to the bio-coal mixture; (iii) optionally, contacting the bio-coal mixture with a binder; and (iv) compacting the resulting mixture of step (ii) or (iii) to form one or more carbonaceous feedstock briquettes, the size of said briquettes having a dimension of at least 5 mm.
Waanders discloses in paragraph 0032, the source of biochar is prepared from a combination of lignocellulosic biomass and liquid (such as water, alcohols or other organic solvents) in a standard liquefaction high pressure reactor and dried to form a dried source of biochar. Waanders further discloses in paragraph 0033, the lignocellulosic biomass is preferably rich in lignin matter, such as any agricultural waste material, lignocellulosic waste material from fermentation processes, waste material from sugar processing industries, wood residues, grasses and other organic material. Lignocellulose consists of cellulose molecules, hemicellulose molecules and lignin molecules. Each of these is a complex polymer and each species of plants has a unique composition of the three polymers. Waanders discloses in paragraph 0034, green or dried raw biomass may be used. Suitable biomass materials include, but are not limited to, sweet sorghum bagasse, amaranth stalks and stems, sunflower husks, sawdust, weeds, lignosulfonate, sludge, extracted molasses, or a mixture thereof. In a preferred embodiment, the biomass consists of sweet sorghum bagasse, amaranth stalks and stems, sunflower husks, or a mixture thereof.
Waanders further discloses in paragraph 0036, a catalyst additive in the form of a source of an alkali metal or a source of an alkaline earth metal is added to the bio-coal mixture to enhance the reactivity. The source of the alkali metal or the alkaline earth metal may be selected from potassium (K), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), or any other suitable alkali or alkaline earth metal. Examples thereof include, but are not limited to K2CO3, Na2CO3, Ca(OH)2, and CaCO3. As mentioned herein before, alkali metals such as potassium and sodium help to reduce the melting point of the coal fines, therefore lowering the temperature (and thus the energy) needed for gasification.
Waanders further discloses in paragraph 0039, where appropriate, an optional binder may be added to and mixed with the bio-coal mixture. Suitable binders include, but are not limited to, lignin, a lignin and asphalt emulsion, wheat starch, lignosulfonate, tall oil, coal tar, polyvinyl alcohol, phenolic resin, paper sludge, a molasses and lime mixture, gaur gum, polymer material, plastics or mixtures thereof. The amount of binder added may be between 1 and 5 wt %.
Waanders discloses in paragraph 0035, the ratio of discard coal fines to biochar could vary between 0 and 100 wt%.
Waanders discloses in paragraph 0041, the term briquette is intended to cover the compacted articles regardless of their shape and regardless of the method of compacting. As used, and unless otherwise indicated, the term briquettes include extrusions, pellets, and other shapes which have been subjected to the requisite compacting.
Waanders discloses in paragraph 0045, the moisture content of the carbonaceous material, lignocellulosic biomass and optional binder being processed into the briquettes is in the order of between 10% and 30%. Waanders further discloses in paragraph 0137, the moisture and sulphur content is removed from the pellets.
It is to be noted, Waanders does not disclose the biocarbon composition having a third volatile matter of less than 15% and therefore Waanders has met the limitation of the present invention of having less than 15 percent of third volatile matter (less than 15 percent encompasses zero).
It is to be noted, Waanders does not disclose the particles in the biocarbon composition having less than 1% airborne by weight and therefore Waanders has met the limitation of the present invention of having less than 1% airborne by weight (less than 1 percent encompasses zero).
The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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) 7-9 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waanders et al. (US 2018/0119040) hereinafter “Waanders” in view of Jennissen et al. (US 2017/0130958) hereinafter “Jennissen”.
Regarding Claim 7-9 and 39
Waanders discloses the composition of independent claim 1 of the present invention but fails to disclose the properties of dependent claims 7-9 and 39.
However, Jennissen discloses in paragraph 0021, the formation coal or cokes together with a secondary fuel comprising cellulose and plastic, in the form of pellets of a size larger than about 3 mm thickness, and having a caloric value of about 16 GJ/ton or more, is co-grinded to a powder with a particle size wherein about 95 wt % or more of the powder has a particle size smaller than 2 mm and wherein the d50 of the particle size distribution is between about 5 and about 100 μm.
Jennissen discloses in paragraph 0043, the bulk density (tapped) of the pellets is about 350 kg/m3 or higher, preferably about 400 kg/m3, such as for example about 430 or 450 kg/m3. Jennissen discloses in paragraph 0044, the strength of the pellets is about 5 kgf or more, preferably about 8 kgf or more, more preferably about 10 kgf or more. Jennissen discloses in paragraph 0046, the moisture content of the pellets relative to dry pellets is about 15 wt % or less. Jennissen discloses in paragraph 0047, the ash content of the pellets generally is about 20 wt % or less. Jennissen discloses in paragraph 0048, the pellets can be prepared from waste mixtures. Cellulose/plastic waste mixtures originate for example from industrial, domestic, urban or municipal waste.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the coke pellets of Waanders to comprise the properties of the coke pellets of Jennissen. The motivation to do so is to create a pellet that reduces emission upon burning due to the specific properties.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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