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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 8-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Please note that elected independent claim 1 is drawn to: “A process for the production of syngas comprising:”
Dependent claim 5 is indefinite in regards to its preamble claim language of: “The process composition of claim 1,” [Emphasis added]. Because claim 1 is drawn to a process for the production of syngas, and NOT to a composition, the word “composition” must be deleted from the preamble to overcome this indefinite issue.
Dependent claims 8-13, 15 and 18-20 are all indefinite in regards to their preamble claim language of: “The process, feedstock or syngas composition of claim 1,” [Emphasis added]. Because claim 1 is drawn to a process for the production of syngas, and NOT to a feedstock or syngas composition, the words: “feedstock or syngas composition” must be deleted from the preambles of each of these dependent claims to overcome this indefinite issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Examination Note:
Applicant’s elected independent claim 1 has the limitation of: “and a feedstock composition comprising a solid fossil fuel and less than 5 wt.% densified textiles”, [Emphasis added]. Applicant should be well aware that the claim language of: “and less than 5 wt.% densified textiles” [Emphasis added] encompasses the situation wherein the concentration of densified textiles is 0 wt.%. As such, Independent claim 1 DOES NOT actually require the presence of any densified textiles in the feedstock composition. Because dependent claims 7-13, 15 and 18-20 are all individually dependent on independent claim 1, these dependent claims also DO NOT actually require the presence of any densified textiles in the feedstock composition. Thus if any of said dependent claims have further limitations in regards to densified textiles themselves in the feedstock, or the results achieved of having any densified textiles in the feedstock during the production of syngas, said limitations will be deemed to be moot in regards to the following prior-art rejections.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arora U.S. Patent application Publication No.: 2013/0144087 A1.
Arora discloses co-gasification processes for forming syngas from biomass and a fossil fuel (e.g. coal). In one aspect, the invention is to a process for producing syngas, comprising: introducing biomass, a fossil fuel, water and oxygen to a gasifier and forming syngas comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. In other aspects, the invention relates to integrated processes for producing industrial chemicals, such as alcohols, carboxylic acids, esters, aldehydes, olefins and polymers from such syngas, see abstract, title and dependent claim 10.
Arora’s paragraph [0048] reads in part as followed: “Biomass may be obtained from any suitable source including, but not limited to, agricultural plant waste, plant waste from processes, consumer waste and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production. Examples of biomass include, but are not limited to, agricultural wastes, forest products, grasses, and other cellulosic material, timber harvesting residues, softwood chips, hardwood chips, mixtures of softwood and hardwood chips, tree branches, tree stumps, leaves, bark, sawdust, off-spec paper pulp, corn, corn stover, wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, switchgrass, miscanthus, animal manure, municipal sewer waste (MSW), municipal garbage, municipal sewage sludge, commercial waste, grape pumice, grape seeds, almond shells, pecan shells, coconut shells, coffee grounds, grass pellets, hay pellets, wood pellets, cardboard, paper, cloth, forest residue, paper mill waste, sludge, willow, alfalfa, pelletized refuse derived fuel (RDF), bagasse, highway clippings, and mixtures thereof. . . . In some aspects, the biomass comprises aquatic biomass, optionally selected from the group consisting of microalgae, macroalgae, microplants, duckweed, water hyacinth, cattails, banana tree stem, kelp, and green algae. Aquatic biomass may be particularly desirable for co-gasification with fossil fuels, as described below.” [Emphasis added].
Arora’s paragraph [0033] and claims 7 and 9, disclose that the weight ratio of biomass (aqueous biomass is illustrated) to fossil fuel is from 1:99 to 40:60.
Arora’s paragraphs [0070] and [0077]-[0078] directly disclose that the co-gasification processes for forming syngas from biomass and a fossil fuel (preferably coal) is one where the gasifier used is an entrained flow gasifier.
Arora’s paragraph [0052] discloses that the biomass used can be transported to the gasification apparatus.
Arora’s paragraph [0055] discloses that the gasification process may be characterized as either slurry processes or non-slurry processes.
Arora’s paragraphs [0102]-[0203] disclose various processes wherein the produced syngas itself is used as a feedstock to produce organic compounds such as applicant’s claimed (see claim 7) organic compounds of: acetic acid, methanol, methyl acetate, acetate, acetic anhydride, C2-C5 oxygenated compounds, formaldehyde, dimethyl ether, MTBE, oxo products, aldehydes, and/or isobutene.
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be directly anticipated over Arora’s co-gasification processes using an entrained flow gasifier for forming syngas from a feedstock comprising both biomass and coal fossil fuel.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora U.S. Patent application Publication No.: 2013/0144087 A1.
Arora has been described above and differs from Applicant’s claimed process for the production of syngas in that there is not a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example) to where the biomass component of densified textiles, is present in the feedstock stream from 0.1 wt.% to less than 5 wt.%, based on the weight of all solids.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Arora’s above cited disclosure as strong motivation to actually perform Applicant’s claimed process for the production of syngas wherein the biomass component is selected to be compacted/pelletized cloth, and is present in the feedstock stream from 0.1 wt.% to less than 5 wt.%, based on the weight of all solids. Please note that it is well known in the art that cloth is woven or felted fabric made from wool, cotton or other natural or synthetic fibers. Cloth is thus a subgenus of textiles.
To compress the cloth to increase its density (e.g. as pellets) would be at once envisaged from Arora’s disclosure of paragraph [0048] wherein other types of biomass (e.g. grass pellets, hay pellets, wood pellets, pelletized refuse derived fuel (RDF), are disclosed to be first compressed prior to their combination with the fossil fuel source to form the feedstock for the production of syngas. Compression of solid fuel sources, such as biomass fuel sources, is also well known in the art because it introduced both uniformity and increased density, both of which are highly desirable for efficient and reproducible syngas production processes.
Finally, applicant’s claimed concentration range of where the biomass component of densified textiles, is present in the feedstock stream from 0.1 wt.% to less than 5 wt.%, based on the weight of all solids, falls directly within Arora’s disclosure of paragraph [0033] and claims 7 and 9, wherein it is disclosed that the weight ratio of biomass (aqueous biomass is illustrated) to fossil fuel is from 1:99 to 40:60. As way of illustration only, when Arora’s cloth biomass concentration to fossil fuel (e.g. coal) is used at weight ratios of 1:99, 2:98, 3:97 and 4:96 (and all points therein), it would fall directly within Applicant’s claimed concentration range.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 8-13 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,939,406. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims are deemed to be a subset of the pending claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764