Thanks for providing this. It explains a lot.
I read the documents correspondence back and forth and the "Final Rejection" response from PTO on 9-28-16 explains why it was rejected for a couple of reasons.
The specific products Dr. Blair, et al are claiming in steps 1 - 4 have already been "claimed" by prior applicants and their technology; Jakobsson in 2002 and Zeikus, et al (Patent # 4,403,032)from similar processes, albeit with enzymes. The focus is on identifying what the specific end reaction product(s) is and percentages. Since someone beat them to it, they can not make a specific product claim for their reaction product, therefore not allowing them to strengthen their patent around the CTS technology. Additionally, the patent reviewer also goes on to cite "non-statutory double-patenting" as the general claims in the new application mirror what was already stated in the issued original patent, 8062428.26 b2, and further supports rejection of this application. From a litigation or enforcement standpoint, this seems huge as anyone can design and operate a similar process, just slightly different, but achieve the same end product. Sounds like anyone could duplicate their CTS process and just add a drop of water to the reactor and the ALLM patent would be useless, since it is based on a "non-aqueous" reaction of solid acid catalyst and material.
So if all they are left with is general claims of making sugars as an end product from CTS process, it doesn't seem like the patent is all that strong or enforceable from a licensing standpoint. This would explain why no license agreements or bolt-ons or plants built in 4 years.
The further you dig, the more clearer things become...Thanks
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
