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.
Claim 58 is 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.
Claim 58, line 2, states “the CO2-enriched gas less than or equal to .1% methane”. It is unclear what is meant by this statement. Further clarification is requested. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as the CO2 gas has less than or equal to .1% methane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 23, 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krylowicz et al. (PL197595B1).
Regarding Claim 23, Krylowicz teaches the following:
A biogas purification system, biogas, carbon dioxide processing system and methane processing system as well as the gas mixer and technological tanks (a biogas processing plant)(para 17).
The biogas separation system is in the form of a two chamber saturator (CO2 removal stage) with an inlet chamber A (methane input to the processing plant) which received purified biogas from the biogas tank 7 (for receiving methane-enriched gas) and is filled with a liquid absorbing only CO2 from the gas mixture and a methane gas pipeline at the outlet (para 17)
The methane gas processing system comprises the methane gas pipeline exiting the saturator to a methane condenser further connected to a liquified methane tank (liquefication stage)(para 17)
PNG
media_image1.png
413
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: The processing plant is being considered as the section of the plant that begins after biogas tank 7 (see Fig. 3, below).
Regarding Claim 57, the limitation of the methane enriched gas having a ratio of methane to CO2 of 85:15 or higher is directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Krylowicz and the apparatus of Krylowicz is capable of working on methane enriched gas having a ratio of methane to CO2 of 85:15 or higher. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Krylowicz (see MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 58, the limitation of the CO2-enriched gas being less than or equal to .1% methane is directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Krylowicz and the apparatus of Krylowicz is capable of working on CO2-enriched gas being less than or equal to .1% methane. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Krylowicz (see MPEP §2115).
Claims 23-28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR101027809B1).
Regarding Claim 23, Park teaches the following:
A liquified biomethane production device (para 1)(a mobile biogas processing plant).
Biogas generated from an anaerobic digestion tank is supplied through a pretreatment process 110 and sent to the cold box (120) which liquifies the biogas and separates carbon dioxide contained in the biogas (para 109 and 110)(a methane input to the processing plant and one or more CO2 removal stages configured to remove CO2 from the gas, and a liquification stage configured to generate liquid methane from the gas)
The device being used for receiving methane-enriched biogas is an intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP 2114). The device of Park would be capable of receiving methane-enriched gas and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 24, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches carbon dioxide (CO2 enriched gas) is introduced into the pre-cooling heat exchanger 121 (para 116). This means the pre-cooling heat exchanger must have a CO2 input to the processing plant which receives CO2 enriched gas. The CO2 removal stages configured to generate liquid or solid CO2 from the CO2 enriched gas is an intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP 2114). The biogas plant as taught by Park would be capable of generating liquid or solid CO2 were it to be supplied to the CO2 removal stage and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 25, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches the cold box receives the biogas liquifies it and simultaneously separates the carbon dioxide (para 110)(one of the CO2 removal stages and the liquefication stage are a single combined stage).
Regarding Claim 26, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches during the separation process, carbon dioxide is solidified and then gasified and discharged to the outside of the second heat exchanger (para 113-114) and is then supplied to the pre-cooling heat exchanger, which is part of the CO2 removal stage, in which the biogas flows through after the pre-treatment process (para 116)(one of the CO2 removal stages is configured to operate using liquid CO2 extracted from the methane-enriched gas).
Regarding Claim 27, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches, as above, the CO2 is solidified, gasified, and supplied to the pre-cooling exchanger, which is also part of the liquification stage (para 116)(the liquification stage is configured to operate using liquid CO2 extracted from the methane-enriched biogas).
Regarding Claim 28, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches the cold box (CO2 removal stage) is equipped with a pre-cooling heat exchanger and at least two heat exchangers coupled to that (para 110)(at least one of the CO2 removal stages comprises one or more of a heat exchanger).
Regarding Claim 34, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches the liquified methane is stored in storage tank 141 (para 145)(a liquid methane storage unit coupled to an output of the liquification stage). The storage tank would be removable and replaceable with a replacement unit in some capacity as it would have been installed to collect the liquified methane initially.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR101027809B1) in view of Barclay et al. (CA2361809A1).
Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (above). Park does not teach the liquefication stage to comprise one or more of a Joule-Thompson unit, cryocooler, or Brayton cycle device.
Barclay teaches an apparatus for separating CO2 from a mixture of gases (Abstract). Barclay further teaches the cooling system a recuperative refrigeration system can be based on Brayton cycles using nitrogen, argon, or pure methane as their refrigerants (page 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a refrigeration system based on Brayton cycles. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Barclay teaches it to be an effective refrigeration cycle to be used in separating CO2 from a gas mixture. Further, a selection of known item based on its suitability for its intended use has been deemed prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR101027809B1) in view of Heffernan et al. (EP3339253A1).
Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park further teaches the device for liquefying methane contained in biogas generated from an anaerobic digestion tank (anaerobic digester). Park does not teach the methane input to be coupled to an anaerobic digester comprising at least one semipermeable membranes that is selectively permeable between CO2 and methane.
Heffernan teaches recovering carbon dioxide from biogas produced in an anaerobic digester (para 53). Heffernan further teaches a known technique, which is using a gas-selective membrane, which is either more permeable to carbon dioxide or more permeable to methane (an anaerobic digester comprising at least one semipermeable membrane that selectively permeable between CO2 and methane)(para 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Park and to have the anaerobic digestion tank to include a selectively permeable membrane as taught by Heffernan. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it, as Heffernan stated, it is a known technique for recovering either carbon dioxide or methane from an anaerobic digester (para 53) and it would have yielded an effective way of collecting a gas either richer in carbon dioxide or methane depending on the needs of the system.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR101027809B1) in view of Leonard et al. (US20060213370).
Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park does not teach the biogas plant to comprise a vehicle and is transportable to a remote site.
Leonard teaches a mobile biogas processing system (Abstract). Leonard further teaches the processing system to be mounted to the trailer of a truck (vehicle)(para 58 and Fig. 9A, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device of Park as mobile system with a transport via a truck as taught by Leonard. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it is beneficial to be able to drop the system off at a site for a period of time and then retrieved later (para 58).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR101027809B1) in view of Golo (FR2971332A1).
Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 23 (see above). Park does not teach a liquid nitrogen storage that is removeable and replaceable with a replacement unit.
Golo teaches the apparatus to comprise a storage for the nitrogen-rich liquid (sacrificial cooling liquid) connected to the means for sending the liquid into an exchanger (lines 80-84). As the system must have been built and put together including the storage unit, the storage unit is therefore, in some capacity, removable or replaceable with a different unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 6 and 7 that Krylowicz and Park does not teach a mobile biogas processing plant, the processing plant is made of different tanks and systems that were put together; therefore it would be capable of being pulled apart and moved making it a “mobile” biogas processing plant.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 that Krylowicz teaches the biogas tank 7 is raw biogas, not methane enriched, Krylowicz teaches tank 7 to be a purified biogas tank and the biogas taken from tank 7 is enriched with methane (page 15).
In response to applicant's argument that Park’s device does not use methane-enriched gas, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the CO2 input connected to the CO2 removal stage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Park does not teach a CO2 removal stage to operate using liquid or solid CO2 extracted from the methane-enriched biogas, Park teaches during the separation process, carbon dioxide is solidified and then gasified and discharged to the outside of the second heat exchanger (para 113-114) and is then supplied to the pre-cooling heat exchanger, which is part of the CO2 removal stage, in which the biogas flows through after the pre-treatment process (para 116).
The remainder of the arguments refer to new or amended claims and are addressed above.
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 JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights