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 § 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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 is rejected because it recites "said fibrous biomass feedstock comprises whole hemp stalks and straw". It is not clear applicant try to claim two different material such as hemp and straw or there is just hemp product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watts (2018/0214882).
Regarding claim 14, Watts discloses a vertical impact liberator (figs 11-14) for processing fibrous biomass feedstock comprising hemp into reduced particle size in a single pass, comprising:
an inlet (member 25) configured to receive a fibrous biomass feedstock comprising hemp;
a housing (member 5) connected to said inlet, said housing having a plurality of sidewalls, a rotatable shaft comprising a plurality of anti-wrap blocks (para 0036), at least one anti- wrap shield (para 0036), a plurality of cutter discs (member 9) arranged in a spaced-apart stack along said rotatable shaft (para 0021), and a fan assembly (member 83) mounted inside the housing below the spaced-apart stack of cutter discs, said fan assembly comprising a fan disc having a direction of rotation and one or more fan blades (member 85) connected to the fan disc for pulling air through said housing (member 10, para 0030);
each cutter disc having an outer edge and at least one hammer mounted on the cutter disc and extending radially outwardly past the outer edge of the cutter disc, said housing having a plurality of shelves extending inwardly from respective sidewall sections and presenting an inner edge, the at least one hammer rotating in closely spaced relation to an upper surface of the respective shelf, wherein a gap is defined between the inner edge of the shelves and the outer edge of a respective cutter disc and hammer (para 0027),
wherein a chamber is formed between each opposing pair of cutter discs in the spaced-apart stack (para 0035); and
an outlet (member 27) configured to discharge biomass of reduced particle size.
Regarding claim 15, Watts discloses said plurality of anti-wrap blocks are attached to a top surface of said rotatable shaft (para 0022).
Regarding claim 16, Watts discloses said at least one anti-wrap shield is arranged between said inlet and said rotatable shaft so as to prevent the fibrous biomass feedstock from accessing said rotatable shaft upon entering the housing (para 0036).
Regarding claim 17, Watts discloses said gap is adjustable (para 0036).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being 9. unpatentable over Watts (2018/0214882) in view of Bates (2016/0325288).
Regarding claim 1, Watts teaches a process for one-pass size reduction of fibrous biomass comprising: introducing a fibrous biomass feedstock into an inlet of a vertical impact liberator comprising (para 0004):
a housing (member 5) having a plurality of sidewalls, a rotatable shaft (member 7), a plurality of cutter discs (member 9) arranged in a spaced-apart stack along said rotatable shaft, and a fan assembly (member 83) mounted inside the housing below the stack of cutter discs, said fan assembly comprising a fan disc having a direction of rotation and one or more fan blades (member 85) connected to the fan disc for pulling air through said housing (para 0030);
each cutter disc having an outer edge and at least one hammer mounted on the cutter disc and extending radially outwardly past the outer edge of the cutter disc (para 0027),
said housing having a plurality of shelves extending inwardly from respective sidewall sections and presenting an inner edge, the at least one hammer rotating in closely spaced relation to an upper surface of the respective shelf, wherein a gap is defined between the inner edge of the shelves and the outer edge of a respective cutter disc and hammer (para 0022 and 0025),
wherein a chamber is formed between each opposing pair of cutter discs in the spaced-apart stack, said fibrous biomass feedstock being reduced in size as it passes through said gap and into each respective chamber; and collecting one or more biomass particles of reduced size at an outlet of the vertical impact liberator (claim 1).
Watts does not teach the biomass is hemp.
Bates teaches a method of biomass is hemp (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method of Watts by using hemp, as taught by Bates, in order to have bast or hemp fiber which is known as resistant to tearing, stretching, and shrinking.
Regarding claim 2, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said one or more biomass particles of reduced size comprises particles selected from the group consisting of hurds (Bates, para 0104), fibers (Bates, para 0108), and fines (Bates, para 0105) of said hemp.
Regarding claim 3, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said hurds have a particle size of about 0.075 mm to about 3 mm (Bates, para 0105).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said fibers have a length of about 0.5 mm to about 700 mm (Bates, para 0111).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said fibers are separated fibers (Bates, para 0113).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said fines have a particle size of about 0.075 mm to about 1 mm (Bates, para 0105).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said one or more biomass particles of reduced size has a reduced moisture content as compared to the fibrous biomass feedstock (Bates, para 0135).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said fibrous biomass feedstock comprises whole hemp stalks and straw (Watts, para 0016).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said fibrous biomass feedstock is only passed through said vertical impact liberator one time to yield said one or more biomass particles of reduced size (Watts, fig 14).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said passing further comprises pulling the fibrous biomass feedstock through a first gap and into a first chamber, said pulling causes a successive decrease and increase of pressure within the fibrous biomass feedstock so as to yield said one or more biomass particles of reduced size (Bates, para 0105).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said rotatable shaft comprises a plurality of anti-wrap blocks (Watts, para 0036).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses said housing further comprises at least one anti-wrap shield (Watts, para 0036).
Regarding claim 20, the modified method Watts-Bates discloses crude seed oil prepared by processing said fines produced according to claim 2 in an oil extractor machine (Bates, para 0084).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 10. Watts (2018/0214882) and Bates (2016/0325288) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bothell et al. (2002/0023772).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method Watts-Bates teaches all limitations except said fibrous biomass feedstock is not pre-dried before passing through said vertical impact liberator. Bothell teaches a method using fresh hemp that is not pre-dried.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method of Watts by using fresh hemp that is not pre-dried, as taught by Bothell, in order to save the cost of processing.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 11. Watts (2018/0214882) and Bates (2016/0325288) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Haberle et al. (2021/0253776).
Regarding claim 18, the modified method Watts-Bates teaches all limitations except a biodiesel or biochar prepared by processing said hurds produced according to claim 2 in a pyrolysis machine.
Haberle teaches a biodiesel or biochar prepared by processing said hurds produced in a pyrolysis machine (para 0176 to 0177).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify method of Watts by having by product such as biodiesel or biochar, as taught by Haberle, in order to maximize the benefit.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 12. Watts (2018/0214882) and Bates (2016/0325288) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Haberle et al. (2021/0253776).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method Watts-Bates teaches all limitations except a textile fiber, yarn, or wool prepared by processing said bast fibers produced according to claim 2 in a textile spinning machine.
Stone teaches a textile fiber, yarn, or wool prepared by processing said bast fibers produced in a textile spinning machine (col 1, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify method of Watts by having by product such as yarn, as taught by Stone, in order to maximize the benefit.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,449,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claimed a grinder having housing, cutter, inlet and outlet ports.
Claims 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,799,873. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claimed a grinder having housing, cutter, inlet and outlet ports.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as 16. being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,449,544 in view of Bates (2016/0325288). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method of Patent No. 10,449,544 by using hemp, as taught by Bates, in order to have bast or hemp fiber which is known as resistant to tearing, stretching, and shrinking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732