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 01/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 21-27, 29-32, 35-36, 40 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1 and 23-24 are amended. Claims 4, 7, 10-11, 14-15, 17-20, 28, 33-34, 37-39, and 41-55 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 23, 27, 29-32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen et al. (US 20120285080 A1, listed in IDS received 12/16/2021) in view of Marker et al. (US 20170137294 A1, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023), Warnecke (“Gasification of biomass: comparison of fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifier”, supplied with Office Action dated 04/25/2023), and Mahony (US 3235374 A, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023), with evidence from Gonzalez et al. (“Pyrolysis of various biomass residues and char utilization for the production of activated carbons”, supplied with Office Action dated 04/25/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Despen teaches a first reactor 112/114/116 configured for pyrolyzing a biomass feedstock [0021-0023], generating a biogenic reagent comprising carbon 126 and pyrolysis off-gas 122 [0012-0019, 0240-0241].
Despen teaches a carbon recovery unit 500 (i.e., a second reactor) configured for reacting the biogenic reagent with a selected reactant 204 (Fig. 1, [0243-0244, 0246]) generating reducing gases 134 [0243], wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen [0372]. Despen teaches the second reactor 1022 comprises an outlet 1024 for outputting activated carbon [0199, 0311], where as outputting the activated carbon must intrinsically be either continuous or non-continuous (i.e., periodic), the second reactor is configured for continuously or periodically removing activated carbon from the second reactor. Despen teaches the system further comprises a heating unit 824 in thermal communication with the biomass processing unit 808 (i.e., the first reactor), wherein the heating unit is configured for oxidizing the pyrolysis off-gas, thereby generating heat (Fig. 8, [0032]). Despen teaches the exhaust gas may be sent to a recovery system, or exploited for any reusable qualities [0296], and that the biogenic reagent may be converted into a syngas (CO and H2) for direct reduction of iron ore [0572].
Despen teaches that additional additives may be added to the enriched gases before being introduced to the second reactor [0297], and teaches activated carbon is produced in the second reactor [0199, 0311], but is silent to the second reactor being configured to increase hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift reaction.
González discloses pyrolyzing to generate a char which is then used to prepare activated carbon by steam gasification was well known in the art (Abstract), where steam activation is achieved at 850 C by adding steam (2.2.1. “Thermogravimetric analysis”, 3.4. “Steam activation of chars”). González teaches increasing hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift reaction (CO + H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] CO2 + H2) (3.4. “Steam activation of chars”).
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, therefore “reacting the biogenic reagent with a selected reactant, thereby generating reducing gas, wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen, wherein the second reactor is configured to increase hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift” results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Despen teaches a second reactor that is operated at elevated temperatures to produce activated carbon and that additional additives can be added to the gases fed to the second reactor, and González discloses that adding steam (i.e., an additive) to a reactor for producing activated carbon at elevated temperatures results in the water-gas shift and production of hydrogen, Despen teaches an apparatus capable of performing the claimed functions.
Despen teaches that additional additives may be added to the enriched gases before being introduced to the second reactor [0297], and teaches activated carbon is produced in the second reactor [0199, 0311], but does not teach the second reactor to be a fixed-bed reactor or rotary kiln.
Marker teaches a process where activated carbon is produced by adding steam and a hydropyrolysis char produced from biomass (i.e., biogenic reagent comprising carbon) to a steam activation vessel (analogous to a second reactor) (Abstract, [0038-0039]), thus Despen and Marker are analogous as both are directed to systems that produce activated carbon from biomass. Marker teaches the second reactor may be a fixed-bed reactor (Abstract, [0038-0039]).
Warnecke teaches fixed bed reactors to have simple and robust construction, low pressure drop, and significant industrial experience among other advantages (Table 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a fixed-bed reactor as taught by Marker as the second reactor of Despen as doing so would provide a reactor with simple and robust construction, low pressure drop, and significant existing experience, predictably reducing cost and maintenance requirements of the reactor and increasing availability of experienced personnel to operate the process equipment as taught by Warnecke.
Despen does not teach a third reactor configured for chemically reducing a selected metal oxide. Mahony teaches a system and process for the direct reduction of iron ore (Title), where iron oxide is reduced to the metallic state by reacting with CO gas (Col. 1 lines 9-16, Col. 2 lines 20-27); thus, Despen and Mahony are analogous as both relate to reducing iron ore using reducing gases. Mahony teaches an iron reduction reactor 1 (i.e., a third reactor) configured for chemically reducing a selected metal oxide (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 19-23) in the presence of reducing gas (Col. 1 lines 9-16, Col. 2 lines 20-27) comprising hydrogen (Col. 6 lines 15-33), thereby generating a reduced form of the selected metal oxide (Col. 2 lines 46-52), wherein the chemically reducing is achieved by utilizing the hydrogen. Mahony teaches the reducing gases are supplied by off-gases from a carbonizing hearth 3 (Fig. 1, Col. 1 lines 59-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the iron reduction reactor of Mahony to the system of Despen, using the reducing gases from the carbon recovery unit of Despen as the reducing gases in the reactor, as Despen teaches reducing gases comprising hydrogen from the carbon recovery unit should be exploited for any usable qualities, and Mahony teaches reducing iron ore using reducing gases comprising hydrogen, which would utilize the gas for a useful purpose of recovering useful metal from iron ore. Doing so would have been further obvious as Despen teaches it is desirable to apply gaseous products from operating the apparatus to reduction of iron ore.
Regarding claim 23, Marker teaches the second reactor may be a fixed-bed reactor (Abstract, [0038-0039]).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 27, 29-32, and 40 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 27, 29-32, and 40 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker, Warnecke, and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muradov et al. (US 7691182 B1, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023).
Claims 21-22 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 21-22 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker, Warnecke, and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metius et al. (US 8685136 B2, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023).
Claims 25-26 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 25-26 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker, Warnecke, and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugitatsu (US 6797034 B2, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023).
Claims 35-36 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 35-36 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 24, 27, 29-32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 1, Despen teaches a first reactor 112/114/116 configured for pyrolyzing a biomass feedstock [0021-0023], generating a biogenic reagent comprising carbon 126 and pyrolysis off-gas 122 [0012-0019, 0240-0241].
Despen teaches a carbon recovery unit 500 (i.e., a second reactor) configured for reacting the biogenic reagent with a selected reactant 204 (Fig. 1, [0243-0244, 0246]) generating reducing gases 134 [0243], wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen [0372]. Despen teaches the second reactor 1022 comprises an outlet 1024 for outputting activated carbon [0199, 0311], where as outputting the activated carbon must intrinsically be either continuous or non-continuous (i.e., periodic), the second reactor is configured for continuously or periodically removing activated carbon from the second reactor. Despen teaches the system further comprises a heating unit 824 in thermal communication with the biomass processing unit 808 (i.e., the first reactor), wherein the heating unit is configured for oxidizing the pyrolysis off-gas, thereby generating heat (Fig. 8, [0032]). Despen teaches the exhaust gas may be sent to a recovery system, or exploited for any reusable qualities [0296], and that the biogenic reagent may be converted into a syngas (CO and H2) for direct reduction of iron ore [0572].
Despen teaches that additional additives may be added to the enriched gases before being introduced to the second reactor [0297], and teaches activated carbon is produced in the second reactor [0199, 0311], but is silent to the second reactor being configured to increase hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift reaction.
González discloses pyrolyzing to generate a char which is then used to prepare activated carbon by steam gasification was well known in the art (Abstract), where steam activation is achieved at 850 C by adding steam (2.2.1. “Thermogravimetric analysis”, 3.4. “Steam activation of chars”). González teaches increasing hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift reaction (CO + H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] CO2 + H2) (3.4. “Steam activation of chars”).
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, therefore “reacting the biogenic reagent with a selected reactant, thereby generating reducing gas, wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen, wherein the second reactor is configured to increase hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift” results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. A manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Despen teaches a second reactor that is operated at elevated temperatures to produce activated carbon and that additional additives can be added to the gases fed to the second reactor, and González discloses that adding steam (i.e., an additive) to a reactor for producing activated carbon at elevated temperatures results in the water-gas shift and production of hydrogen, Despen teaches an apparatus capable of performing the claimed functions.
Despen teaches that additional additives may be added to the enriched gases before being introduced to the second reactor [0297], and teaches activated carbon is produced in the second reactor [0199, 0311], but does not teach the second reactor to be a fluidized-bed reactor. Marker teaches a process where activated carbon is produced by adding steam and a hydropyrolysis char to a steam activation vessel (analogous to a second reactor), (Abstract, [0038-0039]), and that the second reactor may be a fluidized bed reactor, where fluidized beds are often preferable for promoting uniform temperatures and flow distributions [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a fluidized bed reactor as taught by Marker as the second reactor of Despen, as doing so would maintain more uniform temperatures and flow distributions within the reactor, predictably improving the uniformity and purity of the activated carbon produced, increasing the value of the products produced by the apparatus.
Despen does not teach a third reactor configured for chemically reducing a selected metal oxide. Mahony teaches a system and process for the direct reduction of iron ore (Title), where iron oxide is reduced to the metallic state by reacting with CO gas (Col. 1 lines 9-16, Col. 2 lines 20-27); thus, Despen and Mahony are analogous as both relate to reducing iron ore using reducing gases. Mahony teaches an iron reduction reactor 1 (i.e., a third reactor) configured for chemically reducing a selected metal oxide (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 19-23) in the presence of reducing gas (Col. 1 lines 9-16, Col. 2 lines 20-27) comprising hydrogen (Col. 6 lines 15-33), thereby generating a reduced form of the selected metal oxide (Col. 2 lines 46-52), wherein the chemically reducing is achieved by utilizing the hydrogen. Mahony teaches the reducing gases are supplied by off-gases from a carbonizing hearth 3 (Fig. 1, Col. 1 lines 59-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the iron reduction reactor of Mahony to the system of Despen, using the reducing gases from the carbon recovery unit of Despen as the reducing gases in the reactor, as Despen teaches reducing gases comprising hydrogen from the carbon recovery unit should be exploited for any usable qualities, and Mahony teaches reducing iron ore using reducing gases comprising hydrogen, which would utilize the gas for a useful purpose of recovering useful metal from iron ore. Doing so would have been further obvious as Despen teaches it is desirable to apply gaseous products from operating the apparatus to reduction of iron ore.
Regarding claim 24, Marker teaches a process where activated carbon is produced by adding steam and a hydropyrolysis char to a steam activation vessel (analogous to a second reactor), (Abstract, [0038-0039]), and that the second reactor may be a fluidized bed reactor [0039].
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 27, 29-32, and 40 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 27, 29-32, and 40 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muradov.
Claims 21-22 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 21-22 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metius et al. (US 8685136 B2, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023).
Claims 25-26 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 25-26 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen in view of Marker and Mahony with evidence from Gonzalez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugitatsu (US 6797034 B2, cited in Office Action dated 04/25/2023).
Claims 35-36 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 09/11/2025. Claims 35-36 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Despen’s carbon recovery unit cannot be equated with a second reactor that meets all of the constraints in amended claim 1 (see pg. 7-8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted by Applicant, Despen teaches the carbon recovery unit 1022 includes an outlet 1024 to output activated carbon 1000. As removing activated carbon from the carbon recovery unit must intrinsically be performed either continuously, or non-continuously (i.e., periodically), the second reactor of Despen is intrinsically configured to continuously or periodically remove activated carbon. Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that activated carbon is continuously or periodically removed while a reducing gas is being generated along with the water-gas shift reaction) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As Applicant notes, Despen is silent to the second reactor being configured to increase hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift reaction, however Despen discloses that additional additives may be added to the second reactor used to produce activated carbon, with no limitations on the additives that may be added. Despen is evidenced by Gonzalez, where Gonzalez discloses that steam may be added to a reactor for producing activated carbon, which causes the water-gas shift reaction to occur. As claim 1 is directed to an apparatus “reacting the biogenic reagent with a selected reactant, thereby generating reducing gas, wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen, wherein the second reactor is configured to increase hydrogen content of the reducing gas via the water-gas shift” results from a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself. As Despen teaches a second reactor that is operated at elevated temperatures to produce activated carbon and that additional additives can be added to the gases fed to the second reactor, and González discloses that adding steam (i.e., an additive) to a reactor for producing activated carbon at elevated temperatures results in the water-gas shift and production of hydrogen, the apparatus of Despen is capable of performing the claimed functions as demonstrated by Gonzalez, without making any modifications to the apparatus of Despen.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As Despen is modified by Marker and Warnecke to suggest using a fixed-bed reactor as the second reactor based on the advantage that fixed bed reactors have simple and robust construction, low pressure drop, and significant experience as taught by Warnecke, and in the alternative is modified by Marker to suggest using a fluidized-bed reactor as the second reactor based on the advantage that fluidized bed reactors have more uniform temperatures and flow distributions within the reactor, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Despen to use a fixed bed or fluidized bed reactor in order to benefit from the advantages disclosed by Warnecke and Marker respectively prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, producing the apparatus claimed.
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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733