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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-28, and 30-40 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0055] of the instant specification.
Regarding the previous double patenting rejection over 17530677, as Applicant notes in the remarks on Pg. 10, that application has been abandoned and accordingly the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 that step (d) and (e) are not reasonably taught or suggested in Mennel. Applicant notes step (e) requires chemical reduction of a metal oxide to be performed with a reducing gas containing H2 in 10 mol%
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As outlined in the previous rejection of 08/08/2025, Mennel teaches feeding material obtained from pyrolysis into a separate additional reactor for further pyrolysis where heated inert gas is introduced to create a product with high fixed carbon levels where off-gases are produced, which includes reducing gases such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane ([0211]; [0556]-[0557]). Examiner has previously noted the deficiency of Mennel teaching chemically reducing a metal oxide and the prior art Han was applied to teach this limitation.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the volatiles produced by the biomass include gas reducing agents such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide and serve to reduce metal oxides, such as iron oxide, to reduced forms (Claims1-7; Pg. 2, par. 1-6). Advantageously, performing the metal oxide reduction using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Where Mennel and Han are silent regarding the mol% of hydrogen being produced, Tobey is relied on.
Tobey teaches a process for biomass gasification that provides syngas where the biomass gasification provides a gas mixture that includes from 20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide (Table 1; [0069]).
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 Han does not teach forming activated carbon.
However, in response to applicant's argument that Han is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the volatiles produced by the biomass include gas reducing agents such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide and serve to reduce metal oxides, such as iron oxide, to reduced forms (Claims1-7; Pg. 2, par. 1-6). Han teaches these reactions are conducted using biomass to produce a solid carbon residue (Pg. 2, par. 4-9). Accordingly, Han is in a similar field of endeavor, being the field of biomass reduction with metal oxide and reducing gas to prepare solid carbon materials.
Advantageously, Han teaches performing the metal oxide reduction using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Accordingly, a skilled artisan looking to improve the reduction efficiency and reduce residues generated when reducing a metal oxide in the presence of reducing gases obtained from biogenic reagents would find the disclosure of Han to be motivating and general to carbon producing reactions.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 that Tobey teaches biomass gasification rather than pyrolysis.
However, Tobey teaches the gasifier can include pyrolysis gasifiers ([0067]).
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 that even if Tobey’s gasification is constructed as step (d), that the gasifier would convert a starting biomass feedstock, not a biogenic reagent first made via pyrolysis.
However, Tobey teaches the production of a reducing gas mixture that includes from 20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide (Table 1; [0069]) that is produced from a biomass that can be pretreated with a dry treatment or pyrolysis of at least a portion of the biomass ([0068]). Accordingly, Tobey teaches a carbon containing biomass material that can undergo a partial biomass pyrolysis prior to gasification to produce the mixture containing the claimed hydrogen mol%.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 that Tobey states nothing about using a metal oxide or producing activated carbon.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Tobey is not relied on to teach using a metal oxide or producing an activated carbon but rather Han and Mennel are, respectively. Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Mennell teaches a process that provides continuous processing to produce biogenic activated carbon (Abstract; Title).
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 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.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, 17-20, 25-28, and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell et al. (US20150144831A1) in view of Han et al. (KR102163821B1 English) and Tobey et al. (US20150028260A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mennell teaches a process that provides continuous processing to produce biogenic activated carbon (Abstract; Title). Mennell teaches the process comprises providing a starting carbon-containing feedstock comprising biomass (i.e. step (a)), performing pyrolysis in a second reactor where the exhaust gases are captured for optional later use (i.e. step (b)), feeding material obtained from pyrolysis into a separate additional reactor for further pyrolysis where heated inert gas is introduced to create a product with higher fixed carbon levels where off-gases are produced (i.e. step (d)) ([0113]; [0095]), which includes reducing gases such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane ([0211]; [0556]-[0557]). Mennell further teaches the biogenic activated carbon material can be recovered following pyrolysis and separation of vapors and/or gases produced during pyrolysis (i.e. step (f) ([0152]-[0159]).
Regarding step (e), Mennell teaches an additive can be included before, during, or after one or more steps (a)-(f), where the additive is selected from materials including a metal, metal oxide, or a combination thereof ([0242]). Mennell further teaches the biogenic activated carbon product is responsive to an external magnetic field due at least in part to the presence of iron ([0245]).
The claim requires “ chemically reducing a selected metal oxide in the presence of the reducing gas from step (d), thereby generating a reduced form of the selected metal oxide.” As stated above, Mennell teaches a metal oxide additive can be incorporated into the biomass feed, which can be treated by pyrolysis, and that the biogenic activated carbon product can comprise iron. While a skilled artisan could readily envisage the pyrolysis step in Mennell serving to calcine a metal oxide to a metal (i.e. the transformation of iron oxide to iron at higher temperatures in the presence of a reducing gas), because Mennell also teaches a metal can be added to the biomass, it cannot be said with certainty the iron in the biogenic activated carbon of Mennell is a direct consequence of metal oxide calcination to a metal, as required by the claim.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the volatiles produced by the biomass include gas reducing agents such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide and serve to reduce metal oxides, such as iron oxide, to reduced forms (Claims1-7; Pg. 2, par. 1-6).
Advantageously, performing the metal oxide reduction using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce metal oxides to metals with volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis in the process of Mennell in order to increase the reduction efficiency of the metal oxide and reduce the residues generated during biomass reduction as taught by Han.
The claim further requires the “reducing gas comprises at least 10 mol% hydrogen” to which Mennell and Han are silent regarding the concentrations of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced during biomass pyrolysis.
Tobey teaches a process for biomass gasification that provides syngas where the biomass gasification provides a gas mixture that includes from 20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide (Table 1; [0069]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Tobey (20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 10 mol% hydrogen; at least 10 mol% carbon monoxide). Therefore, the range in Tobey renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the process of Tobey provides concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide from biomass that reduces capital costs ([0008]-[0012]; [0014]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reducing gas with a concentration of hydrogen from 20 to 60 mole% and carbon monoxide from 20 to 60 mole% in the process of Mennell in order to reduce capital costs, as taught by Tobey.
Regarding claim 2, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell further teaches the heating step providing off-gases occurs at a temperature from about 100 °C to 600 °C (see at least [0090]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Mennell (from about 100 °C to 600 °C ) overlaps with the claimed range (about 300 to about 1200 °C). Therefore, the range in Mennell renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “step (e) is conducted at a reduction temperature selected from about 500°C to about 2000°C,” to which Mennell is silent.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the volatiles produced by the biomass include gas reducing agents such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide and serve to reduce metal oxides, such as iron oxide, to reduced forms where the step of reducing the metal oxide is performed at a 600 to 1000 °C (Claims1-7; Pg. 2, par. 1-6). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Han (from about 600 °C to 1000 °C ) overlaps with the claimed range (about 500 to about 2000 °C). Therefore, the range in Han renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, performing the metal oxide reduction at a temperature from 600 to 1000 °C using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce metal oxides to metals at a temperature from about 600 to 1000 °C with volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis in the process of Mennell in order to increase the reduction efficiency of the metal oxide and reduce the residues generated during biomass reduction as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell further teaches “Biomass includes, for example, plant and plant-derived material, vegetation, agricultural waste, forestry waste, wood waste, paper waste, animal-derived waste, poultry-derived waste, and municipal solid waste. In various embodiments of the disclosure utilizing biomass, the biomass feed stock may include one or more materials selected from: timber harvesting residues, softwood chips, hardwood chips, tree branches, tree stumps, knots, leaves, bark, sawdust, off spec paper pulp, cellulose, corn, corn Stover, wheat Straw, rice Straw, Sugarcane bagasse, Switchgrass, miscanthus, animal manure, municipal garbage, municipal Sewage, commercial waste, grape pumice, almond shells, pecan shells, coconut shells, coffee grounds, grass pellets, hay pellets, wood pellets, cardboard, paper, carbohydrates, plastic, and cloth. A person of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate that the feedstock options are virtually unlimited.” See [0165].
Regarding claim 5, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell further teaches the biogenic activated carbon as provided herein will normally contain greater than about half its weight as carbon, since the typical carbon content of biomass is no greater than about 50 wt %, where more typically, but depending on feedstock composition, a biogenic activated carbon will contain at least 55 wt %, at least 60 wt %, at least 65 wt %, at least 70 wt %, at least 75 wt %, at least 80 wt % 85 wt %, at least 90 wt %, at least 95 wt %, at least 96 wt %, at least 97 wt %, at least 98 wt %, at least 99 wt % carbon” (Table 5, in examples A, B and C, teaches carbon (wt %) of 73.3 %, 71.2 %, and 71.0 %, respectively; [0063]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Mennell (at least 55 wt.% carbon) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 50 wt.% carbon). Therefore, the range in Mennell renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell further teaches the biogenic activated carbon comprises from 49.4 wt.% fixed carbon, with a sample achieving a fixed carbon content of 95.7 wt.% (Table 5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the values taught by Mennell (49.4 wt.% fixed carbon and higher) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 50 wt.% fixed carbon). Therefore, the range in Mennell renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell further teaches the additive is selected from the group consisting of a salt, a metal, a metal oxide, a metal hydroxide, a metal halide, and combinations thereof, where the specific species can include magnesium, manganese, aluminum, nickel, iron, chromium, silicon, boron, cerium, molybdenum, phosphorus, tungsten, Vanadium, iron chloride, iron bromide, magnesium oxide, dolomite, dolomitic lime, fluorite, fluorospar, and bentonite ([0358]; [0364]).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires the metal oxide comprises iron ore, to which Mennell does not explicitly state an iron ore is used, where the ore comprises hematite, magnetite, limonite, taconite, or a combination thereof.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the metal oxide material can be limonite, which is an iron ore (Pg. 3, par. 7-9; Pg. 3-4, Example 2). Advantageously, performing metal oxide reduction, comprising an iron ore such as limonite, using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an iron ore such as limonite in the process of Mennell in order to increase the reduction efficiency of the metal oxide and reduce the residues generated during biomass reduction as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 10, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the reduced form of the selected metal oxide is a fully reduced metal,” to which Mennell is silent.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the metal oxide can be iron oxide and where the iron oxide is reduced to metallic iron (Pg. 2, par. 1-7). Advantageously, performing metal oxide reduction, comprising iron oxide, using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an iron oxide to metallic iron in the process of Mennell in order to increase the reduction efficiency of the metal oxide and reduce the residues generated during biomass reduction as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 13, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1.
The claim further requires the “reducing gas comprises at least 10 mol% carbon monoxide” to which Mennell and Han are silent regarding the concentrations of the carbon monoxide produced during biomass pyrolysis.
Tobey teaches a process for biomass gasification that provides syngas where the biomass gasification provides a gas mixture that includes from 20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide (Table 1; [0069]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Tobey (20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 10 mol% hydrogen; at least 10 mol% carbon monoxide). Therefore, the range in Tobey renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the process of Tobey provides concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide from biomass that reduces capital costs ([0008]-[0012]; [0014]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reducing gas with a concentration of hydrogen from 20 to 60 mole% and carbon monoxide from 20 to 60 mole% in the process of Mennell in order to reduce capital costs, as taught by Tobey.
Regarding claim 14, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Mennel and Han are silent.
Tobey teaches a partial oxidation step is performed on the crude syngas generated by biomass pyrolysis that includes a water gas shift reaction that adjusts the hydrogen to carbon monoxide mole ratio and decrease the concentration of carbon dioxide in the syngas ([0081]).
Advantageously, performing this process provides a higher percentage of biomass that becomes available for conversion ([0014]; [0081]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the hydrogen content of the gas mixture with a water-gas shift reaction in the process of Mennell in order to provide a higher percentage of biomass to become available for further conversion, as taught by Tobey.
Regarding claim 17, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Mennel and Han are silent.
Tobey teaches a partial oxidation step is performed on the crude syngas generated by biomass pyrolysis that adjusts the hydrogen to carbon monoxide mole ratio and decrease the concentration of carbon dioxide in the syngas ([0081]). Advantageously, performing this process provides a higher percentage of biomass that becomes available for conversion ([0014]; [0081]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the hydrogen content of the gas mixture with a water-gas shift reaction in the process of Mennell in order to provide a higher percentage of biomass to become available for further conversion, as taught by Tobey.
Regarding claim 18, Mennell teaches the vapors or gases produced by the pyrolysis can be treated or separated using techniques including distillation columns, flash vessels, centrifuges, cyclones, membranes, filters, packed beds, capillary columns, and so on ([0546], [0112], [0121-0122]). Mennell further teaches “In another embodiment, non-polar compounds or enriched gases from a gas-phase separator are extracted for optional later use, and in various embodiments, off gases from one or more zones/reactors are fed to a process gas heater. In one embodiment, gases extracted from the pre-heat zone/reactor, the pyrolysis zone/reactor and optionally the cooling zone/reactor are extracted into a combined stream and fed into the gas-phase separator. In various embodiments, one or more of the zones/reactors is configured to control whether and how much gas is introduced into the combined stream.” [0121]. Mennell further describes the extracted gases can be sent as inert gases to a deaeration unit, reactor, BPU, or cooler ([0123]), where such gases include CO, a reducing gas ([0555]-[0557]).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and 18 and the claim further requires the “additional reducing gas comprises at least 20 mol% hydrogen” and “…at least 20 mol% carbon monoxide,” to which Mennell and Han are silent regarding the concentrations of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced during biomass pyrolysis.
Tobey teaches a process for biomass gasification that provides syngas where the biomass gasification provides a gas mixture that includes from 20 to 60 mole% of hydrogen and 20 to 60 mole% of carbon monoxide (Table 1; [0069]). Tobey teaches the hydron and carbon monoxide values are further manipulated to arrive at a carbon monoxide mole% of 35 to 60 and a hydrogen mole ratio of 35 to 60 (Table II, [0081]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Tobey (at least 350 mol% hydrogen; at least 35 mol% carbon monoxide) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 20 mol% hydrogen; at least 20 mol% carbon monoxide). Therefore, the range in Tobey renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the process of Tobey provides concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide from biomass that reduces capital costs ([0008]-[0012]; [0014]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reducing gas with a concentration of hydrogen from 35 to 60 mole% and carbon monoxide from 35 to 60 mole% in the process of Mennell in order to reduce capital costs, as taught by Tobey.
Regarding claims 25-26, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claims further requires limitations to which Mennell is silent.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the metal oxide material can be limonite, which is an iron ore (Pg. 3, par. 7-9; Pg. 3-4, Example 2). Han further teaches the reduction is performed in a furnace such as horizontal reduction furnace in the form of a rotary kiln (i.e. a rotary hearth furnace) (Pg. 3, par. 6-8). Han teaching that iron ore is reduced in a furnace requires the furnace to be “a metal ore furnace,” meeting the requirement of claim 25. Advantageously, performing metal oxide reduction, comprising an iron ore such as limonite, using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an iron ore such as limonite in the process of Mennell in order to increase the reduction efficiency of the metal oxide and reduce the residues generated during biomass reduction as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 27, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires step (b) and step (e) are conducted at the same site, to which Mennell is silent.
Han teaches a method for reducing a metallic oxide by using a biomass containing volatile material (Abstract; Title). Han teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the metal oxide material can be limonite, which is an iron ore (Pg. 3, par. 7-9; Pg. 3-4, Example 2). Performing the biomass pyrolysis to generate reducing gas in the presence of metal ore that is reduced is equivalent to performing these operations (i.e. step (b) and (e)) at a single site such as is the same furnace. Advantageously, performing metal oxide reduction, comprising an iron ore such as limonite, using the volatiles produced during biomass pyrolysis leads to increased reduction efficiency and reduces residues generated in the biomass after reduction (Pg. 2, par. 14-19).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an iron ore such as limonite in the process of Mennell in order to increase the reduction efficiency of the metal oxide and reduce the residues generated during biomass reduction as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 28, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell further teaches the process is performed in multiple-reactor system (Fig. 1-13, [0026]-[0038]). Accordingly, it would be obvious all the process steps taught by Mennell would be performed in a single site (i.e., the multiply connected reactors).
Where Mennell does not explicitly teach step (e), Han is relied on who teaches biomass is heated in the presence of a metal oxide, where the metal oxide material can be limonite, which is an iron ore (Pg. 3, par. 7-9; Pg. 3-4, Example 2). Performing the biomass pyrolysis to generate reducing gas in the presence of metal ore that is reduced is equivalent to performing these operations (i.e. step (b) and (e)) at a single site such as is the same furnace. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan the process taught by Mennell in view of Han could be performed at a single site, where the required reactors and furnaces for the process are located proximally, as taught by both Mennell and Han. A skilled artisan would have expectation of success in performing process step (e) at a single site in the process of Mennell, as Han teaches a single site biomass and iron ore reduction step is feasible.
Regarding claims 30-32, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell teaches in examples A-C, carbon (wt %) values of 71.0 – 73.3 % ([0840, Table 5]). Mennell teaches biogenic activated carbon has relatively high carbon content compared to the initial feedstock utilized to produce the biogenic activated carbon. A biogenic activated carbon as provided herein will normally contain greater than about half its weight as carbon, since the typical carbon content of biomass is no greater than about 50 wt %. More typically, but depending on feedstock composition, a biogenic activated carbon will contain at least 55 wt %, at least 60 wt %, at least 65 wt %, at least 70 wt %, at least 75 wt %, at least 80 wt % 85 wt %, at least 90 wt %, at least 95 wt %, at least 96 wt %, at least 97 wt %, at least 98 wt %, at least 99 wt % carbon ([0063]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Mennell (at least 99 wt% carbon) overlaps with the claimed ranges (at least 10 wt.% activated carbon recovered; at least 50 wt.% activated carbon recovered; at least 90 wt.% activated carbon recovered). Therefore, the range in Mennell renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 33-35, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennell teaches the process can be optimized to provide higher fixed carbon numbers as a result of providing larger sized activated carbon products ([0169]), where the process provides high fixed carbon levels that may be about 1%, 25%, or even higher in various embodiments ([0551]-[0552]). Mennell teaches the total carbon content of the biogenic activated carbon can comprise at least 99 wt% of total carbon, where the total carbon includes fixed carbon ([0595]). The term “essentially all” is interpreted as being about 99 wt.% fixed carbon, as described in [0026] of the instant specification. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Mennell (at least 99 wt% total carbon, including fixed carbon) overlaps with the claimed range (at least 50 wt.% fixed carbon; at least 90 wt.% fixed carbon, essentially all of the fixed carbon). Therefore, the range in Mennell renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 36, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires the “at least 50 wt% of the volatile carbon within the biogenic reagent generated in step (b) is directed to reducing gas,” to which Mennell is silent regarding the concentrations of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced during biomass pyrolysis.
Tobey teaches the biomass gasification provides a crude syngas gas mixture comprising up to 60 mol % carbon monoxide and 15 mol% methane (75 mole% of the mixture), where the entirety of the mixture is directed to usage as reducing gas in subsequent steps ([0069]; Table 1; [0071]-[0081]).
Advantageously, providing a larger component of higher hydrocarbons leads to a greater amount of carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the gas phase that can ultimately be used for reduction ([0071]; [0013]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to direct at least 75 mol% of the volatile carbon within the biogenic reagent to reducing gas in the process of Mennell in order to produce more syngas (CO and H2 mixture) that can be used for reduction steps, as taught by Tobey.
Regarding claims 37-39, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and Mennel teaches the biogenic activated carbon may be characterized by an Iodine Number of at least about 500, 1000, 1500, or 2000 ([0243]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Mennell (at least about 500, 1000, 1500, or 2000) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Iodine number at least about 500; Iodine number at least about 1000; Iodine number at least about 2000;). Therefore, the range in Mennell renders obvious the claimed range.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell et al. (US20150144831A1) in view of Han et al. (KR102163821B1 English) and Tobey et al. (US20150028260A1) and further in view of Guo et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 2017, 327, 822-830)
Regarding claim 11, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the reduced form of the selected metal oxide is a second metal oxide having a lower oxidation state than the selected metal oxide,” to which Mennell, Han, and Tobey are silent. Guo teaches the reduction of iron oxide to a lower oxidation state as exemplified in equations 2-7 below (Pg. 825, left col.).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guo teaches the duration of the iron ore reduction determines the product profile, where reduction persisting longer than 30 minutes leads to conversion of Fe2O3 to Fe, while reduction lasting from 5 to 30 minutes provides FeO in addition to Fe (Pg. 825-826, left col.; Fig. 4).
Advantageously, the duration of reduction controlling the presence of reduced iron oxides, such as FeO, provides changes in material properties including expansion which leads to compressive strength changes (Pg. 826, 3.2.2.-Pg. 828).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a lower oxidation state metal oxide in the process of Mennell in order to effect material properties, control compressive strength, and optionally perform reduction for less than 30 minutes but at least 5 minutes, as taught by Guo.
Regarding claim 21, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and process further requires “the process further comprising recovering the reduced form of the selected metal oxide”, to which Mennell, Han, and Tobey are silent.
Guo teaches the XRD results of iron ore pellet samples before and after the reduction process (Fig. 4). The XRD patterns clearly show the formation of Fe2O3, FeO and Fe, where recovery of the material was necessary in order to perform and obtain the XRD results.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to advantageously modify the process of Mennell in view of Guo to recover and evaluate the iron ore samples by XRD in the process of Mennell.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell et al. (US20150144831A1) in view of Han et al. (KR102163821B1 English) and Tobey et al. (US20150028260A1) and further in view of Dowaki et al. (US20190201836A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Mennell, Han, and Tobey are silent.
Dowaki teaches a process for recovering hydrogen from biomass pyrolysis gas that includes purifying the biomass pyrolysis gas by recovering hydrogen, where the hydrogen purification and recovery is performed with a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) apparatus ([0027]-[0028]; Abstract; [0030]).
Advantageously, the hydrogen purification and recovery method allows for the recovery of highly concentrated hydrogen gas under relatively low pressure and doesn’t require special agents or apparatus, resulting in reduced operating costs ([0069]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate, purify, and recover the hydrogen gas with a pressure-swing adsorption apparatus in the process of Mennell in order to reduce operating costs and provide highly concentrated hydrogen gas, as taught by Dowaki.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell et al. (US20150144831A1) in view of Han et al. (KR102163821B1 English) and Tobey et al. (US20150028260A1) and further in view of Norgate et al. (ISIJ International, 2012, 52, 8, 1472-1481).
Regarding claims 22-24, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Mennell, Han, and Tobey are silent.
Norgate teaches a process for utilizing biomass as a renewable source of carbon for the reduction of iron ores for use in steel making (Abstract; Title). Norgate teaches pyrolyzed biomass (i.e. charcoal) can be used to replace coal in a variety of scenarios including replacing coal in integrated steel plants and in direct smelting of iron ores (Fig. 4, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduced Fig. 4 from Norgate showing existing process steps in the art where coal could be replaced with biomass derived carbon.
Norgate teaches in the case of iron ore reduction, lumps of iron ore is fed into blast furnace following mining, crushing and screening (Pg. 1475-1476, 4.1, Integrated Route). Norgate teaches transportation of carbon sources is a significant issue (Pg. 1480, left col).
Advantageously, providing biomass from a nearby location to perform ore reduction, such as in steel manufacturing, would reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of the process and solve a known issue in the art (see Pg. 1480, Conclusion, left col.; Fig. 5, 6; Table 5).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the iron ore reduction with biomass derived carbon (i.e. charcoal) near facilities such as integrated steel plants and direct smelting operations in the process of Mennell in order to reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of the steelmaking process and solve the known biomass transportation issue, as taught by Norgate.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell et al. (US20150144831A1) in view of Han et al. (KR102163821B1 English) and Tobey et al. (US20150028260A1) and further in view of Wilson, (Isotope Ratio Measurements, 2016).
Regarding claim 40, modified Mennell teaches the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires limitations to which Mennell, Han, and Tobey are silent.
Wilson teaches a process for determining the 12C/14C isotope ratio of carbonaceous fuels where advantageously determining if a fuel is renewable or fossil carbon based (non-renewable) allows renewable energy credits to be obtained as providing a renewable carbon source (Brief; Introduction).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze 12C/14C ratios in the biomass in the process of Mennell in order to determine if it is fully renewable in order to obtain energy credits, as taught by Wilson.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738