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.
Claims 8 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites a range of 1.24 to 1.24 micro electron volts. It is unclear what the actual intended range is, as a range cannot be defined using the same point for upper and lower bounds. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “approximately 1.24 micro electron volts” without a specified range, until clarified.
Claims 19-21 refer to a mixing apparatus and depend from claim 15. Claim 15 does not recite a mixing apparatus; this is introduced in claim 18. This is interpreted as a typographical error and that claims 19-21 should depend from claim 18.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al (US PGPub 2014/0011248 A1) in view of Charron et al (US PGPub 2018/0066293 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Medoff teaches systems and methods for processing biomass feedstocks [Abs] to produce useful products. The feedstock can be preliminarily processed by physical treatment, e.g. grinding [0020] which may occur in a wet state [0061] such that treatment of a slurry and suitable fluid conveyance is at minimum obvious. The feedstock may further undergo hydrolysis which may be driven by microwave energy [0016], and when irradiation is employed, it can be before or after mechanical treatment [0021]. Products and intermediates can then be isolated using e.g. phase separation, filtering, or the like [0006].
In view of this, provision of means for wet-grinding of a slurry containing the feedstock is at minimum obvious, as is provision of a microwave unit for treatment at least before, or after grinding.
Regarding the treatment of invasive, toxic, or poisonous plant stocks, Medoff teaches that the feedstock may come from waste biomass (sewage, bagasse, stover, sawdust [0002]) or from particular types of cellulose-containing biomass such as hemp [0018] (hemp being identified by the instant specification as an example of an invasive, toxic, or poisonous plant). Regardless, see MPEP 2115; “’[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.’ In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”
Regarding the specific constructional details of the wet grinding device i.e. the motor, drive, and grinding disks, Medoff does not specify particular details. However, Charron teaches devices for processing high-solids biomass into slurries which are useful for similar processes as those employed by Medoff e.g. saccharification at high efficiency [Abs]. The device facilitates efficient mixing with water even of lower density feedstocks, to provide homogenous, high-solids slurries for processing [0005]. And embodiment of the device which incorporates grinding (for particle size reduction) includes flat plates e.g. rotor and stator plates (334) [Figs. 3-5, 0059-0060] to cut and grind biomass material. Charron does not explicitly teach that the system is driven by a high-torque motor, however the system is designed to produce high shear grinding and mixing and therefore optimizing for sufficiently high torque would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to employ a suitable grinding device, useful for processing the right kinds of feedstock and for producing outputs useful for saccharification and similar reactions, such as the device taught by Charron, when processing feedstocks for Medoff’s taught system and process.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Charron does not explicitly teach that the system is driven by a high-torque motor, however the system is designed to produce high shear grinding and mixing and therefore optimizing for sufficiently high torque and suitable RPM would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; “’[W]here 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 (CCPA 1955)”
With respect to claim 7, Medoff II teaches an overlapping range for microwave frequency for processing e.g. for water vaporization and biomass preparation [0329] e.g. up to 300 GHz.
With respect to claim 8, examiner notes that intended use language in apparatus claims is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114.II). The emission of a microwave unit would depend upon operational parameters of the device absent clarification of the specific structural requirements.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Medoff teaches that the mechanical treatment may include treatment in a wet state, e.g. about 75% water, such that providing a mixer to mix the feedstock with water to form a suitable slurry is necessary. Regarding the use of a high agitation mixer, see the discussion of Charron above; the use of such a mixer would have been obvious to provide a slurry which is in good condition for further reactions e.g. saccharification which are consistent with Medoff’s processes.
With respect to claim 21, Medoff teaches that surfactants [0040] can be added to enhance reactions such as saccharification.
With respect to claim 33, Medoff teaches that the biomass may be a starchy material such as kudzu [0051]. Regardless, see MPEP 2115; “’[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.’ In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al, further in view of Rouse et al (US 6,238,448 B1).
Medoff and Charron teach as above, but are silent to the specific details of the wet grinding device employed e.g. specific materials for the grinding discs or stones, or to the arrangement of the discs and stones such that feeding via axially aligned holes and discharge around periphery of the stones.
However, Rouse teaches an example of an inexpensive, simplified grinding stones useful for comminuting and similar applications e.g. grinding of grains, wood, etc. [Abs, Col. 1 lines 26-28, Col. 8 lines 38-40]. The stones are designed to operate in a device consistent with the requirements of the invention i.e. with an axially fed slurry being processed and discharged about a periphery [Fig. 1, Col. 7 line 66-Col. 8 line 5]. The stones may be made as essentially composite materials including an abrasive such as silicon carbide as well as a binding material [Col. 8 lines 37-56], and may employ a baseplate of e.g. steel [Col. 9 lines 57-65]. These properly represent disks of stone, or combination of stone and steel, which incorporate specifically e.g. silicon carbide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Medoff and Charron, which do not particularly specify e.g. materials for grinding equipment, to employ equipment known in the art such as that employed by Rouse, particularly because Rouse teaches that the stones of their design are cheap and simple to manufacture.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al, further in view of Blevins et al (US PGPub 2011/0178185 A1).
Medoff teaches as above but is silent to components for grinding or otherwise reducing feedstock size through milling or the like in which air-suspended particles are captured using a cyclone and/or baghouse.
However, Blevins teaches systems for production of e.g. fuels from feedstocks [Abs] and teaches that various steps of cutting, grinding, milling (otherwise – comminuting) to attain particular particle sized for processing can be accompanied by a suitable grinder discharge cyclone which will separate the resulting material into sized fractions, and e.g. at the end of the process the remaining fines may be discharged to a suitable fines baghouse from a suitable cyclone [0102].
It would have been obvious to provide a similar set of units for grinding and for removing fines from the mechanical treatment/grinding/milling etc. steps in Medoff to provide suitable separation of particles which are not of desired size for processing, as in Blevins.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al, further in view of Zuback (US PGPub 2016/0264444 A1).
Medoff teaches as above but is silent to centrifugal separation for the input of the device e.g. to remove inert materials or the like.
However, Zuback teaches a system for treating organic material with suitable reactors [Abs] and teaches that centrifugation may be employed to remove inert suspended solids from particular streams, thereby ensuring that reactors may operate at high rates [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply similar separations in Medoff’s taught system and process to remove inert materials thereby improving the reactivity of the remaining slurry and enhancing efficiency of the overall process.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al, further in view of Ding et al (CN 208757557 U).
With respect to claim 9, Medoff teaches as above including a potential microwave unit for irradiation, but is silent to specific details such as the use of a containment structure, vacuum/compressor for generating negative atmosphere, and condenser for vapor recovery from off-gassing during such treatment.
However, Ding teaches a combined pulping reactor structure [0002, 0006] for combined high speed shearing, dispersion, pulverization, and reaction in various fields to improve reaction rates, reduce conditions, and generally improve by combining reaction with grinding and the like [0041] including in the fields of plant material processing [0043]. Embodiments [Fig. 1, 0114] include a microwave generator for reaction processing in the reactor vessel, as well as a vacuum decompression/reflux/distillation system which are integrated to the reaction vessel in connection with the grinding apparatus [0189].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such features into the microwave treatment unit employed by Medoff because, as in Ding, this combination of features allows for efficient processing by combining grinding, high shear mixing, and reactions in a convenient manner.
With respect to claim 14, Medoff teaches microwave treatment and grinding as above but is silent to the microwave unit at least being partially integrated into the wet-grinding apparatus. However, as above, Ding teaches combining a grinding/mixing apparatus with a reaction vessel [Fig. 1] in a manner which improves efficiency and reaction rates and the like, including embodiments in which microwave emission is provided for irradiating slurry or the like in connection with a grinding apparatus. The specific effect of the microwave radiation is drawn to the intended use of the claimed device and does not distinguish structurally.
Claims 10-13, 22, 24-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al, further in view of Medoff II (US PGPub 2011/0111456 A1).
With respect to claims 10-13, as above Medoff teaches microwave irradiation may be applied e.g. before or after the mechanical processing (grinding or the like) such that the system would at least implicitly employ a unit separate from the wet-grinding apparatus. See additionally Medoff II which teaches a similar system and process for biomass processing [Abs] and teaches that irradiative treatment for e.g. oxidation of a feedstock slurry may occur in a dedicated reactor structure [0409]. Medoff II additionally describes that various disruption techniques may be flow-through processes [0320-0321], e.g. within the context of sonication, but that microwave treatment may also be employed for this type of treatment [0329]. As such, provision of a microwave unit which acts on a material being conveyed through a suitable conveyance would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in particular those capable of withstanding temperature e.g. during oxidative heat treatments of the type described by Medoff II; provision of suitable transparency to the applied microwave irradiation is implicit or at minimum obvious to ensure that the radiation reaches the slurry. The effect of such microwaves would represent an inherent result of the method step but, regardless, Medoff recognizes that certain treatments like irradiation may render the feedstock in a stage more conducive to grinding e.g. by making them more brittle [0058].
As discussed above, Medoff teaches that this can occur before or after mechanical processing such as grinding; as such, positioning the unit to apply radiation to slurry either upstream or downstream of the wet-grinding device in the combined system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve the intended treatment.
Medoff teaches that processes can be continuous [0163-0164] or semi-continuous [0144] but, regardless, the claim appears to cover all possible configurations and so is inherently satisfied no matter how the process is operated.
With respect to claim 22, as above Medoff teaches that products and intermediates can be separated by centrifugation, filtration, and various other operations [0006]. Further, see Medoff II, which teaches that such separations are useful after certain preprocessing steps e.g. oxidative/microwave treatment steps [0409, 0413-0417], where the liquid may include saccharides for further processing, and the solid may contain still-useful celluloses; Medoff II also teaches that, before pretreatment, the biomass feedstock and be prepared e.g. to control dimensions and the like, including via wet grinding processes [0026, 0159]. As such, separation in manner which is capable of isolating a useful liquid from useful solid fibers, both useful for further processing, would have been an obvious component to provide in the system of Medoff, in view of the guidance of Medoff II.
With respect to claim 24, Medoff teaches that extraction can be employed as a form of separation [0006]. The specific type of extraction and products isolated would depend on process parameters which are drawn to the intended use and/or material worked upon as discussed variously above.
With respect to claim 25, Medoff is silent to ultrasonic separation. However, Medoff II teaches that ultrasonic transducers can be used to generate cavitation to disaggregate cellulosic material which is dispersed in the process stream [0314]; sonication frequency capabilities lie within the claimed range i.e. in the 10-100 kHz ranges [0313]. Employing such a feature as part of a separation system would at least have been obvious i.e. to reduce aggregation in the system of Medoff.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Medoff teaches that UV irradiation can be used for irradiative treatment in general [0073] e.g. for biomass processing, though this is not taught within the context of germicidal processing. However, Medoff II teaches UV radiation specifically for sterilizing fibrous material to kill competing microorganisms [0430], such that providing a UV system specifically configured for germicidal uses would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Medoff II generally teaches UV wavelengths of 100-280 nm [0222].
With respect to claims 29-32, the instant claim language does not require any particular structure for the separation apparatus and instead recites intended uses for the material after separation. Such limitations at this time are not understood to distinguish the structure of the invention over the prior art apparatus.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al and Medoff II, further in view of Pompejus et al (US PGPub 2009/0162892 A1).
Medoff teaches as above, including the use of centrifugation as a separation means [0006]. Medoff is silent to specifically the use of basket or decanting centrifuges.
However, Pompejus teaches systems and processes for producing useful materials from biomass [Abs] in which a sugar-containing medium is formed from a feedstock including processes such as wet-grinding [0030] and teaches that, to isolate the product, the solids and liquids may first be separated through the use of a device such as a basket centrifuge [0091] although decanting is also described [0113]. Because Medoff does not particularly limit the type of centrifuge employed for separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for suitable structures for separations, including basket centrifuges as identified by Pompejus for separating solids and liquids in biomass processing systems.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al in view of Charron et al and Medoff II, further in view of Ding et al.
See the rejection of claim 9 above. Ding teaches a combination of reaction vessel, mixer, grinding apparatus, etc. which incorporate vacuum lines and condensers for distillation or similar processing, and which improve the efficiency of slurry processing by enhancing reaction rate and reaction conditions. Providing such a combined unit which includes a vapor recovery unit (i.e. the vacuum line and condenser as taught by Ding) would have been obvious improvements to the system employed by Medoff in order to gain the benefit of carrying out more efficient reactions as suggested by Ding.
Claims 1-3, 7-14, 18, 19, 21, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al.
With respect to claim 1, Ding teaches a combined grinding/mixing/reaction vessel as discussed above, which includes a grinding device using e.g. flat grinding discs (205) driven by a motor (204) and shaft (211), in connection with a conveying device in the form of a feed pump (215) [0185-0187, Fig. 1], which connect to a reaction vessel (201) which may have connected to it a microwave generator [0189] for performing reactions within.
Ding essentially differs from the instant claimed invention in that Ding does not specify that the motor (204) is a high torque motor. However, the system is intended to provide high-shear grinding and mixing [0196] such that the use of a high torque motor would at minimum have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include. Regarding the use of the system to treat invasive plant stock or the like, the material worked upon is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art device. Further, as discussed above, Ding teaches that the device is suitable for the field of plant material processing [0043].
In view of the above, the system taught by Ding renders the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as above optimizing for sufficiently high torque and suitable RPM would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Ding teaches producing high shear mixing and grinding. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; “’[W]here 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 (CCPA 1955).”
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Ding teaches as above but is silent to the specific frequency and photon energy employed. However, such limitations would depend upon operational parameters of the device absent clarification of the specific structural requirements, and therefore represent the intended use of the claimed device.
With respect to claim 9, as discussed above Ding teaches the microwave unit may include a containment structure such as reaction vessel (201), as well as a compressor or vacuum pump (305) for generating vacuum, as well as condensers (302) and (303) for distillation functions.
With respect to claims 10 and 14, as above Ding teaches a reactor vessel (201) which are designed with sufficient e.g. temperature resistance to carry out reactions and which facilitate microwave irradiation, such that suitable transparency is at minimum obvious. The effect of the microwave irradiation is drawn to the intended use or, alternatively, represents an inherent result of irradiating the material. Whether the unit is considered separate from the wet-grinding apparatus or at least partially integral with the wet-grinding apparatus, making parts separable or integral represent obvious engineering choices for one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 V.B and V.C), and Ding teaches providing functional relationships in which the slurry may flow between the reactor and the grinder through a loop e.g. via ports (209) and (210) [0185].
With respect to claims 11 and 12, as above the microwave irradiation may occur both upstream and downstream of the grinding apparatus, as the apparatus is connected via a side loop to the vessel via ports (209) and (210).
With respect to claim 13, Ding teaches that the device can carry out batch (intermittent) as well as continuous reactions [0256] but, regardless, such limitation is drawn to the intended use of the claimed device.
With respect to claims 18, 19, and 21, Ding teaches including a high shear mixer (214) in the reactor vessel which would be capable of carrying out the claimed intended uses and hence satisfies the structural requirements [0189].
With respect to claim 33, the material worked upon by the device does not distinguish structurally; as above, Ding teaches the device is suitable for processing plant material.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al in view of Rouse et al.
Ding teaches as above but is silent to the specific details of the wet grinding device employed e.g. specific materials for the grinding discs or stones, or to the arrangement of the discs and stones such that feeding via axially aligned holes and discharge around periphery of the stones.
However, Rouse teaches an example of an inexpensive, simplified grinding stones useful for comminuting and similar applications e.g. grinding of grains, wood, etc. [Abs, Col. 1 lines 26-28, Col. 8 lines 38-40]. The stones are designed to operate in a device consistent with the requirements of the invention i.e. with an axially fed slurry being processed and discharged about a periphery [Fig. 1, Col. 7 line 66-Col. 8 line 5]. The stones may be made as essentially composite materials including an abrasive such as silicon carbide as well as a binding material [Col. 8 lines 37-56], and may employ a baseplate of e.g. steel [Col. 9 lines 57-65]. These properly represent disks of stone, or combination of stone and steel, which incorporate specifically e.g. silicon carbide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ding, which does not particularly specify e.g. materials for grinding equipment, to employ equipment known in the art such as that employed by Rouse, particularly because Rouse teaches that the stones of their design are cheap and simple to manufacture.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al in view of Blevins et al.
Ding teaches as above but is silent to components for grinding or otherwise reducing feedstock size through milling or the like in which air-suspended particles are captured using a cyclone and/or baghouse.
However, Blevins teaches systems for production of e.g. fuels from feedstocks [Abs] and teaches that various steps of cutting, grinding, milling (otherwise – comminuting) to attain particular particle sized for processing can be accompanied by a suitable grinder discharge cyclone which will separate the resulting material into sized fractions, and e.g. at the end of the process the remaining fines may be discharged to a suitable fines baghouse from a suitable cyclone [0102].
It would have been obvious to provide a similar set of units for grinding and for removing fines from the mechanical treatment/grinding/milling etc. steps in Ding to provide suitable separation of particles which are not of desired size for processing, as in Blevins.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al in view of Zuback.
Ding teaches as above but is silent to centrifugal separation for the input of the device e.g. to remove inert materials or the like.
However, Zuback teaches a system for treating organic material with suitable reactors [Abs] and teaches that centrifugation may be employed to remove inert suspended solids from particular streams, thereby ensuring that reactors may operate at high rates [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply similar separations in Ding’s taught system and process to remove inert materials thereby improving the reactivity of the remaining slurry and enhancing efficiency of the overall process.
Claims 22 and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al in view of Medoff et al and Medoff II.
With respect to claim 22, Ding teaches as above but is silent to provision of a separator apparatus to separate the slurry into a wet fiber suitable for further processing and a liquid fraction suitable for further processing.
However, as above Medoff teaches a similar system and process for plant processing and teaches that products and intermediates can be separated by centrifugation, filtration, and various other operations [0006]. See also Medoff II, which teaches that such separations are useful after certain preprocessing steps e.g. oxidative/microwave treatment steps [0409, 0413-0417], where the liquid may include saccharides for further processing, and the solid may contain still-useful celluloses; Medoff II also teaches that, before pretreatment, the biomass feedstock and be prepared e.g. to control dimensions and the like, including via wet grinding processes [0026, 0159]. As such, separation in manner which is capable of isolating a useful liquid from useful solid fibers, both useful for further processing, would have been an obvious component to provide in the system of Ding, in view of the guidance of Medoff and Medoff II.
With respect to claim 24, Medoff teaches that extraction can be employed as a form of separation [0006]. The specific type of extraction and products isolated would depend on process parameters which are drawn to the intended use and/or material worked upon as discussed variously above.
With respect to claim 25, Ding is silent to ultrasonic separation, although ultrasonic treatment in the reactor is contemplated. However, Medoff II teaches that ultrasonic transducers can be used to generate cavitation to disaggregate cellulosic material which is dispersed in the process stream [0314]; sonication frequency capabilities lie within the claimed range i.e. in the 10-100 kHz ranges [0313]. Employing such a feature as part of a separation system would at least have been obvious i.e. to reduce aggregation in the system of Ding.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Ding teaches as above but is silent to UV treatment. However, Medoff II teaches UV radiation specifically for sterilizing fibrous material to kill competing microorganisms [0430], such that providing a UV system specifically configured for germicidal uses would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the system of Ding. Medoff II generally teaches UV wavelengths of 100-280 nm [0222].
With respect to claim 28, see the rejection of claim 9 above. Ding teaches a combination of reaction vessel, mixer, grinding apparatus, etc. which incorporate vacuum lines and condensers for distillation or similar processing.
With respect to claims 29-32, the instant claim language does not require any particular structure for the separation apparatus and instead recites intended uses for the material after separation. Such limitations at this time are not understood to distinguish the structure of the invention over the prior art apparatus.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al in view of Medoff et al and Medoff II, further in view of Pompejus et al.
Ding and Medoff teach as above; Medoff teaches the use of centrifugation as a separation means [0006]. They are silent to specifically the use of basket or decanting centrifuges.
However, Pompejus teaches systems and processes for producing useful materials from biomass [Abs] in which a sugar-containing medium is formed from a feedstock including processes such as wet-grinding [0030] and teaches that, to isolate the product, the solids and liquids may first be separated through the use of a device such as a basket centrifuge [0091] although decanting is also described [0113]. Because Ding, Medoff, and the rest do not particularly limit the type of centrifuge employed for separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for suitable structures for separations, including basket centrifuges as identified by Pompejus for separating solids and liquids in biomass processing systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777