Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/22/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 26-36 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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 26-36 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.
Claims 26-36 are system/apparatus claims but are replete with method language and therefore do not particularly point out the subject matter claimed [MPEP 2173.05(p) (II)]. The claims are simultaneously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for mixed statutory categories.
In claim 26 “providing” which is a method limitation and should be “for providing”.
In claim 27, a structural source is referred to as a process.
Claim 28, 31-33, 35, and 36 are all method limitations.
In claims 29, 30, and 34 each use the limitation “is provided” which is a method limitation.
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.
Claims 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/142445 A1 LAMMI et al., hereinafter LAMMI.
As for claims 26-29, LAMMI discloses a hydrolysis process wherein hydrolysis occurs in a batch digester [abstract] via the addition of weak hot hydrolysis liquor (A1) and hot water (A2) which was made from warm water [Figures 1 and 2]. LAMMI discloses two extractions (E1) to the strong hot hydrolysis tank and (E2) to the weak hot hydrolysate tank [Figures 1 and 2]. After hydrolysis the wood chips are then pulped in a kraft process [abstract, pg. 11 lines 5-10]. Therefore, the acidic hydrolysate produced is produced in a kraft process producing dissolving pulp.
As stated, before the hydrolysate goes to two tanks in a tank farm [Figure 2]. The process uses batch digesters therefore the extraction from one batch digester is used in the next batch digester [pg. 6 lines 9 and 10]. The extraction (E2) from a first prehydrolysis kraft stage is used in a subsequent impregnation stage in another kraft pulping digester as acidic impregnation liquor (A1) which is prior to alkaline treatment [Figures 1 and 2]
The Examiner notes that there is nothing in the instant claim language that prevents the kraft cooking plant to also be another prehydrolysis kraft process. There is nothing that states that each process is a continuous digester process and not batch.
As for claim 30, LAMMI uses a whole batch vessel and therefore the hydrolysis also occurs in the top of the vessel [Figure 3a].
As for claim 31, acid hydrolysis impregnation time is an intended use of the apparatus and is not limiting.
As for claims 32-33, LAMMI discloses heating to a 180 degrees C for prehydrolysis [pg. 6] and therefore is capable of heating to a lower temperature. The claimed temperature is an intended use of the apparatus and is therefore non-limiting.
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.
Claims 26-28 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 6,468,390 SNEKKENES et al., hereinafter SNEKKENES, in view U.S. 4,668,340 SHERMAN, hereinafter SHERMAN, as evidenced by U.S. 2008/0295986 PEKKALA, hereinafter PEKKALA
As for claims 26-28, SNEKKENES discloses kraft cooking [col. 3 lines 15]. SNEKKENES discloses that this hemicellulose improves beatability and yield [col. 1 lines 30-35].
SNEKKENES discloses injecting a hemicellulose containing liquor (A) [col. 2 lines 34-35] into a kraft digester in an intermediate zone [Figure 5/6] and a final zone [Figure 7].
SNEKENNES does not suggest that this rich hemicellulose liquor is from acid hydrolysate from an adjacent kraft process.
SHERMAN discloses a prehydrolysis kraft [abstract] and produces an acidic hydrolysate (33) which comprises hemicelluloses [abstract, col. 5 lines 55-60].
At the time of the invention, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the hydrolysate of SHERMAN containing hemicellulose with the “hemicellulose liquor containing liquor” of SNEKKENES. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to precipitate additional hemicellulose in the pulp of SNEKKENES to increase yield and beatability [col. 1 lines 19-22]. SNEKKENES does not limit the liquor (A) to only impregnation liquor containing hemicellulose only that part of the liquor is rich in hemicellulose need be impregnation liquor [col. 2 lines 34-37].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success of using hemicellulose from one fiber line in another fiber line as SNEKKENES states that two fiber lines can be used [col. 3 lines 10-13]. Further supporting a reasonable expectation of success is that it is known to use hemicellulose from one removed from one lignocellulose to increase the yield of a different lignocellulose [claim 31] as evidenced by PEKKALA.
As for claim 34-36, these limitations are process limitations and therefore are non-limiting. SNEKKNES discloses that a low effective residual alkali at the end of the stage is desired of 2-10 g/L which falls within the claimed range [col. 6 lines 14-15]. SNEKKNES discloses a retention time of at least 1 hour which overlaps with the instant claimed range [col. 6 lines 5-10]
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